In the last episode, they had a scene where Marge reads a book to Lisa - and while that is happening:
Man, this seems stupid for them to focus on. The character of Apu has always been a tad sketchy, but because the Simpsons overall has been a voice of satire, I know I was just looking the other way. But when the documentary came out, The Problem with Apu, it was hard for me to not think “yeah, I kinda always thought it was sketchy.”
But reading how Al Jean and even Matt Groening thought it was okay to push back - oy. Not okay. It feels like they are arguing for the Washington Redskins - it was cool back in the day, but even then, not really…
Lisa is rarely the “moral center.” She is often judgmental, and if right in some occasions, it’s often because the people around her (i.e. Homer) are more wrong.
I am just reading the synopsis. He compares Apu to blackface. I’m not sure I’d make those equivalent, there are some stark historical differences. Otherwise I’d have to reserve judgment of both before seeing both the documentary and the episode.
He is one of the more realized characters on the show, both fitting positive and negative stereotypes, while at the same time bucking many of them.
This situation reminds me exactly of the Cleveland Indians/Chief Wahoo situation. There’s a bunch of people on one side saying “it’s a loving tribute! Look, he’s better than all the white people!” and there’s people on the other side saying “I really don’t like how the actual portrayal makes me feel, as a person who is being portrayed by this cartoon.” The people on the “side” of the cartoon really have no ability to see it from the offended party’s side.
Frankly I’m disappointed in The Simpsons for bringing out the “political correctness” buzz phrase. Trite. It’s not “political correctness” it’s so much more nuanced.
Another article in The New York Times describes some parts of the documentary in which some Indian-Americans describe how the caricature affected them, “In one sequence, the actor Aziz Ansari (‘Master of None’) describes being in a car with his dad when a man drives up and asks them where the nearest Quik-E-Mart is. Dr. Vivek Murthy, the 19th surgeon general of the United States, talks about enduring the taunts of an Apu-imitating bully in the seventh grade. And Maulik Pancholy (‘30 Rock’) recounts how much he hated going into 7-Eleven stores as a kid, lest his friends see an Indian store clerk and start doing ‘the Apu thing.’”
It’s not just complaining about political incorrectness for no good reason.
How the hell is he supposed to talk? With a Swedish accent?
The same pathetic morons who bitch about such things are never satisfied. You’d think in this case they’d be applauding Apu’s “inclusion” and “acceptance” on the show.
Where I live, there really are a very disproportionate number of Indian men working in convenience stores. It is obviously not an accident or a coincidence.
I can think that Indian men working in convenience stores is a bad thing, or a good thing, or make other judgments about it, but I can’t un-observe what I have observed.
If I’m writing a comedy about a boy with a skateboard, do I make sure he never hangs out by a convenience store, because there might be an Indian man in there and it would be wrong to show that?
Let’s say I decide to show it, do I have to make sure that the fictional boy is so stupid that he can’t figure out there’s a man behind the counter? Or too stupid to figure out that the man talks with a different accent than the skateboard boy does? Or… does everyone in the story have to look white and talk with the same accent? Wait, that’s not good either…
I am a South Asian man who was born in 1980. I was mocked with an Apu voice and “do you want a slushy /go to the Quik-e-mart” CONSTANTLY in middle school. Yes, Apu was definitely used as a slur against South Asian people since he was introduced.
Do they want an Indian character portrayed in a positive and realistic way? Then they have better create, produce and write their own show. It cannot happen in this one. None of the characters are positive realistic portrayals.
At least they weren’t 15 years ago, when the show was funny.
But here’s the point of discussion… How do we solve a problem like Apu?
He is/was one of the most realized and focused on supporting characters on the show. Some of the arguments against him rely on him only existing in the context of “stereotype who works at the Kwik-E-Mart.” Accents don’t exist in a void…and that it’s a white dude doing the voice is absolutely cringey, but can that be a deal-breaker in voice-over work?
It seems that the producers once they realized this was an issue and that people cared enough to make a documentary about it, should have really looked at how to address it in a positive way.
Sesame Street used to have a problem. Oscar The Grouch was cynical and not nice. The Cookie Monster was greedy.
Sometimes characters are not good.
Bart is not good.
Homer is not good.
Apu is not good.
Many characters on The Simpsons, I have noticed, treat each other quite badly.
I wonder if The Simpsons might be partly about things (and people) that are not good. Wouldn’t that be a very strange thing for a satirical show to be about?
I do. I just think it’s not as simple an argument as it’s being portrayed.
Let’s say Apu was based upon - and voiced by - Manoj Bhargava, and was treated with respect in every way, both the portrayal and the way the other characters interact with him. And while we’re at it, let’s make all the characters treat each other with respect, and let’s show true justice being done in every situation. Would The Simpsons really be better?
I think time and culture will solve the question. The show was once relevant and vibrant, but hasn’t been since the previous century. It will fade and go away.
