The Simpsons

[Chris2K]

The Simpsons has hit episode 636, passing Gunsmoke to be the longest running scripted prime time show in history.

To celebrate, here's the Steamed Hams sketch with Jeff Goldblum as Principal Skinner.

 

 

[MalaCloudy Black]

Has anyone followed the Apu controversy? Comedian Hari Kondabolu put out a really good documentary about the problem with Apu and Indian representation being done by a white guy (and to his credit, Hank Azaria - Apu - has even said that he'd step aside for more Indian representation). It's a critical examination of Apu as a character, and I'd recommend everyone check it out because, as Kondabolu's mother says, "if you love it you can criticize it because you expect more of it" (paraphrasing).

Anyway, Matt Groening gave an interview to USA Today and touched on it..

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2018/04/27/thesimpsons-matt-groening-new-record-fox-animated-series/524581002/

Quote

 

Do you have any thoughts on the criticism of Apu as a stereotype? 

Groening: Not really. I’m proud of what we do on the show. And I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended.

In the April 8 episode, which addressed the Apu criticism and reignited controversy, what did it mean when Marge said, “Some things will be addressed at a later date,” and Lisa said, “If at all”?

Groening: We’ll let the show speak for itself.

 

Reducing "The Problem With Apu" to "wah wah PC culture" is disappointing.

[Josh]

Well, fuck you too Groening.

[apsham]

Old Man Simpson being tone deaf is disappointing, if not unsurprising when it all boils down to it.

I think there's a very fair middle ground for just about anything like this - and it doesn't even have to mean taking the full blame which is pretty much what none of these people want to do - and that just straight up boils down to 'this wasn't something we thought about before, we should think about it now and we're going to do something about it'. Casting a part like Apu and the wide variety of different ethnic characters back when The Simpsons started was down to hiring as few people as possible to do as many voices as possible, and it isn't quite something that people in general would've blinked twice at. But the show has lasted decades and they're in a new world.... 'young people always be whining' probably isn't the best route to take.

[CobraKaiEnTai]

Haven't seen the documentary, so can someone fill me on what the Simpsons creators did that was so offensive other than having a white guy voice an Indian character for 30 years and their recent dismissive attitude about the ensuing controversy? Is there something negative about the way Apu is portrayed they have a problem with (working in a convenience store, having an arranged marriage, having multiple kids, etc.) or is just because they didn't change the voice actor to an Indian person?

[Pooker]

6 hours ago, JTHNumbers2018 said:

Haven't seen the documentary, so can someone fill me on what the Simpsons creators did that was so offensive other than having a white guy voice an Indian character for 30 years and their recent dismissive attitude about the ensuing controversy? Is there something negative about the way Apu is portrayed they have a problem with (working in a convenience store, having an arranged marriage, having multiple kids, etc.) or is just because they didn't change the voice actor to an Indian person?

Haven't seen the documentary either, but from what I've read, that is pretty much it. Nothing too offensive, besides a white guy doing the voicing and the way he is portrayed as a stereotypical guy from India. It's stupid and just somebody crying over something trivial.

[MalaCloudy Black]

I feel like reducing it to "people crying over something trivial" is a huge disservice. I'd implore you guys to watch the documentary first; like I said, Kondabolu grew up watching The Simpsons and his mother's words are that if you love something, you can criticize it because you expect more out of it. Kondabolu still loves the show, it's just that he doesn't love the Indian/South Asian representation in it. 

Quote

Kondabolu’s frustration with The Simpsons similarly stokes easy dismissals, from the very people tasked to change things: Call out Apu, and you inevitably hear that The Simpsons makes fun of everyone, that its characters are all caricatures, that if you can’t take a joke, you should get out of the glow of the TV. As Ambudkar, the actor who voices Apu’s son in an episode created to update the character, after complaints went public, puts it: “The Simpsons always wins.” In Kondabolu’s doc, Ambudkar describes his regret when watching the episode after it aired. As he read it, its writing was designed to make critics of Apu look sillier than the character himself.

http://www.vulture.com/2017/11/hari-kondabolu-problem-with-apu-interview.html

[Josh]

Yeah, a white man playing an Indian character is not trivial. That alone is quite problematic.

[Chris2K]

I kinda feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here.

Hank Azaria also plays Carl and Drederick Tatum, but he's not black.

Dan Castellaneta plays Krusty and the Old Jewish Man, but he's not Jewish.

Nancy Cartwright plays Bart, Nelson, Ralph etc., but she's not a 10 year old boy.

I realise that these are extreme examples, but personally I don't see voice acting as the same thing as live action roles, and people's voice acting talents may get them roles that aren't based on their appearance, gender or background. I don't see it the same as Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, or any of the other major awful racist castings in the past, or the whitewashing that still happens in film and TV today.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe because The Simpsons has been such a pivotal part of my life that I don't want to consider its wrongdoings, and that makes me part of the problem, but to me Apu is a popular animated character who has been the focal point of many episodes, almost always in a positive light and in many episodes teaching people about his culture. I don't see how who is voicing that animated character makes any difference to the message the character sends out.

If I'm wrong, then please teach me why. But please try to do so without personal attacks because I really can't handle that sort of thing (which is why I don't make these sort of posts very often).

[apsham]

11 minutes ago, Chris2K said:

I kinda feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here.

Hank Azaria also plays Carl and Drederick Tatum, but he's not black.

Dan Castellaneta plays Krusty and the Old Jewish Man, but he's not Jewish.

Nancy Cartwright plays Bart, Nelson, Ralph etc., but she's not a 10 year old boy.

I realise that these are extreme examples, but personally I don't see voice acting as the same thing as live action roles, and people's voice acting talents may get them roles that aren't based on their appearance, gender or background. I don't see it the same as Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, or any of the other major awful racist castings in the past, or the whitewashing that still happens in film and TV today.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe because The Simpsons has been such a pivotal part of my life that I don't want to consider its wrongdoings, and that makes me part of the problem, but to me Apu is a popular animated character who has been the focal point of many episodes, almost always in a positive light and in many episodes teaching people about his culture. I don't see how who is voicing that animated character makes any difference to the message the character sends out.

If I'm wrong, then please teach me why. But please try to do so without personal attacks because I really can't handle that sort of thing (which is why I don't make these sort of posts very often).

 

No I think you're pretty much on point - voice acting is an entirely different beast alone. I feel like painting it with the same brush as other instances is looking at it way too simply. If anything voice acting is where these things are the most equal - in many cases the race of the actor has little to nothing to do with the character that they are portraying and not being in front of the camera is the great equalizer. The actor is judged based off their skill to pull off what needs to be done with the character and not about what is or isn't marketable... unless you're talking about big budget animated pictures that tend to shit all over that for big names to get people into the theatre.

[Josh]

53 minutes ago, Chris2K said:

I kinda feel the need to play Devil's Advocate here.

Hank Azaria also plays Carl and Drederick Tatum, but he's not black.

Dan Castellaneta plays Krusty and the Old Jewish Man, but he's not Jewish.

Nancy Cartwright plays Bart, Nelson, Ralph etc., but she's not a 10 year old boy.

I realise that these are extreme examples, but personally I don't see voice acting as the same thing as live action roles, and people's voice acting talents may get them roles that aren't based on their appearance, gender or background. I don't see it the same as Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany's, or any of the other major awful racist castings in the past, or the whitewashing that still happens in film and TV today.

Maybe I'm wrong, maybe because The Simpsons has been such a pivotal part of my life that I don't want to consider its wrongdoings, and that makes me part of the problem, but to me Apu is a popular animated character who has been the focal point of many episodes, almost always in a positive light and in many episodes teaching people about his culture. I don't see how who is voicing that animated character makes any difference to the message the character sends out.

If I'm wrong, then please teach me why. But please try to do so without personal attacks because I really can't handle that sort of thing (which is why I don't make these sort of posts very often).

I’ve got no personal attacks for you. Besides, sounds like you’re genuinely trying to understand.

(First, allow me to put a thought out there just for spurring thought, but in no way has to remain a part of the conversation: when we say we’re “playing devil’s advocate”, what’s the impetus for doing that? It’s a largely rhetorical question. I don’t need an answer, I’m just asking that “of the universe”, so to speak, so we’ll all hopefully consider what triggers that response.)

To the point you made though: I see a difference in a white man voicing an Indian character and, say, a woman playing a 10-year old boy. Ten Year Old Boys (TYOBs?) are not, on their own, a margianalized class of people (at least in white, western culture, where the show originates.) Indian people are. There’s a long cultural history of white people playing Indian people that has led to a misunderstanding, misrepresentation, and ultimately “othering” of Indian people.

Hank Azaria has admitted that Apu’s voice isn’t even based on an actual Indian person, but Peter Sellers’ version of one. In the documentary referenced, Indian people remark on the inaccuracy and hurtful effect it has had. Hari and others comment on how kids would bully them growing up, saying they would derisively call them Apu.

And it’s not because the people making The Simpsons were trying to be hurtful or specifically make fun of Indians. In fact, as has been mentioned, they’ve at times specifically tried to create sympathetic stories surrounding Apu and tried to give accurate cultural representation in how they wrote, drew, and voiced these stories.

But despite their intentions, they’ve still ended up hurting Indian people. We know so because Indian people are saying so. They’re saying it always has been hurtful. And that’s the bottom line: when someone who has traditionally, historically, and culturally been margianalized/hurt already says that what you’re doing is also hurting them, you stop doing it. You apologize and you change.

It happens. We kick people when they’re down, even when we mean to do the opposite. What’s important is apologizing and changing. That’s why it’s so frustrating that they responded to the criticism in the way that they did, from the episode in question to Groening’s interview.

All the while, they have the power to apologize and change. Hire a writing staff that includes Indian (and black and Latinx and etc.) writers. Recast the role. (And yes, recast Carl and Dr. Hibbert. And Bumblebee Man. Actually, maybe ditch that character entirely.)

They can do the right thing, but they’re choosing not to.

[apsham]

Recasting voices in animated works because they don't fit the race/nationality of the on screen character isn't feasible and it never will be. 

I just don't see it being a 1 to 1 analogy with traditional acting roles, it just isn't.

[Josh]

How is it not feasible?

[Skummy]

The Peter Sellers point is crucial - it's not Hank Azaria "doing an Indian voice", it's Hank Azaria doing a stereotypical, racist caricature of an Indian accent. Certainly around where I grew up, it was the voice people would put on to make fun of people of Indian or Pakistani heritage.

What's upsetting is that the writers - and Matt Groening in particular - haven't even pretended to engage with it. They've just completely hand-waved the entire issue away (even while Hank Azaria has admitted fault, and a wish to make amends), and used it as ammunition for the "Political Correctness Gone Mad" brigade, and just used the South Park "they make fun of everyone!" non-excuse, rather than joining the conversation.

[apsham]

8 hours ago, El Hijosh del Ice Cream said:

How is it not feasible?

Take a look at pretty much any program out there that requires a lot of VO work. If you're looking at a movie and you have to get 20 characters cast, you cast 20 individual people and there's not really any getting around that. 20 roles in an animated series can be split between any number of people and it becomes cost efficient (and there are huge costs associated with that line of work) and then things such as time constraints (also a huge thing) are also taken care of by booking more multiple into a single session. But this is kind of beside the point that I was trying to make.

The issue surrounding Apu makes sense to criticize one hundred percent - but a lot of that has to do with the writing around the character in tandem with the choice of accent. The suggestion that a character like Carl needs to be changed is where I'd stop and say 'well maybe we don't paint everything with the same brushed because black and white doesn't match up on the other side of the microphone'. Take a look at any prolific voice actor regardless of their race and they've all done voices that run the spectrum. If there are individual issues they should be addressed, but Carl Carlson and Lenny Leonard could have their skin colours swap and very little would need to change, well... other than this:

But it works just the same way regardless - this isn't jumping to the defence of Hank Azaria for any reason other than he is a voice actor. VAs like Cree Summer and Kevin Michael Richardson shouldn't be limited to just playing black characters either, they - like everyone else in their field - deserve to have well written characters that fit their voice range, nothing more and nothing less.

And the best thing to support in terms of getting more roles into the hands of diverse voice over artists is echoed from something that I've heard Rahul Kohli speak about - where he exclaimed that he didn't want to see more character who were written to be Indian just to get him a role on the show, rather more characters that he could play were well written who just so happened to be Indian. Voice acting is the world where none of what you look like has to influence the end product.

Unless it involves something as specific as Apu, then do it right.

[Your Mom]

I don't think voice actors have to stick to just playing their race. If I remember right Cleveland from Family Guy is done by a white actor. But there is no place for these broad stereotypes like Apu that are hurting people.

[Josh]

When it comes to non-white actors playing roles that are traditionally white or otherwise of undetermined ethnicity, I’m all for that. It’s only when a character is of a non-white ethnicity that I take issue with a white actor playing them.

As for cost and schedule, it’s still plenty feasible to hire more actors of color to play the non-white roles. The Simpsons is a money monolith.

One way or another, we all gotta do the work to get it right, even if it requires a major costly overhaul.

[Your Mom]

Or now that's held on by life support to beat Gunsmoke the show could just go away forever?  

[MDK]

6 minutes ago, El Hijosh del Ice Cream said:

When it comes to non-white actors playing roles that are traditionally white or otherwise of undetermined ethnicity, I’m all for that. It’s only when a character is of a non-white ethnicity that I take issue with a white actor playing them.

wat

[Skummy]

I don't really mind white voice actors portraying non-white characters or vice-versa, unless there's a slew of voice actors of colour not getting work that I'm unfamiliar with that needs to be addressed, but white voice actors doing ethnic stereotype voices like Apu's should be a thing of the past.

But appealing to a cost-based argument doesn't really work in terms of The Simpsons - the show costs an insane amount to produce, and several voice actors have already taken voluntary pay cuts because for years FOX have been saying that the cost to produce a single episode is unsustainable under their current business model. The amount of money that long-term Simpsons voice actors make is insane.