The character of Apu on the long-running "The Simpsons" has been singled out as a particularly offensive stereotype thanks to a documentary by comedian Hari Kondabolu called "The Problem with Apu." The film's producer Adi Shankar started contest to get scripts sent to him that would somehow "improve" the character while still maintaining his place in the Simpsons pantheon. The producers of the series have decided to forego all that and simply drop the popular character from the series, likely minus any fanfare or undue focus.
I have my own views on the whole controversy but I'm not an idiot and won't be discussing them in print. Whether I agree with the documentary's assessment or not, it can be used against me some time in the future. Instead, I have chosen to focus on what I believe is the reason for the response the "Simpsons" producers have chosen.
There has been a problem brewing in the creative world since the Internet went from being an underground rarity to a full-blown accepted part of daily human existence. People have become more involved in their various interests and causes, ridiculously so in many cases, and with that involvement has come an undeserved sense of proprietorship. Somehow real-time interaction has led many to believe they somehow own these franchises they claim to love. This is especially true of Generation X with its constant "You killed my childhood" whining and Millenials who feel the entire entertainment industry is one giant roleplaying game. The moment creation became content, the nature of the field was altered possibly forever.
Konabolu and Shankar are both in their thirties. They have come of age in a time when online slacktivism has been used to accomplish ends both positive and questionable. They know full well the power behind an online movement, even one as seemingly benign as an attempt to "rescue" a character from the perception of negative stereotyping. A contest thrown by someone uninvolved in the series to collect an acceptable script sends a simple and powerful message: We are going to politely yet aggressively make the change we want to see in your product. It is, at its core, a brilliant piece of diplomatic maneuvering and the response of the show's producers was the only one that could have circumvented it.
"The Simpsons" has stood as a monumental achievement of pop culture longevity for three decades. Even for those of us who haven't watched regularly for years, it's obvious they have done something right. And if social attitudes towards one of their characters have changed, one assums they're perfectly capable of dealing with it themselves. By allowing an outsider no matter how well-intentioned to push his way in, they would be sacrificing whatever autonomy they've enjoyed. The same autonomy that has allowed them to outlast any other animated series in history (so far.)
From a writer's perspective, it's a smart move. Everybody knows the show will be going off the air soon. They've made their mark and they want to continue to do so with the time they have left without some guy whose desire it is to hitch onto their accomplishments trying to influence "content." So while it may seem like a compromise, this move is actually the opposite. I applaud the decision not for its end result or even for that fact that the issue hasn't been resolved, but because creators have stood up to a softer, shrewd form of censorship and said no.
No comments:
Post a Comment