Emily Rose

In Yeatman’s essay ‘What Makes a Short Film Good’ Stephen McGlashan states that a short film “can be anything but a feature film.” (Yeatman, 1998) Animated episodes such as The Simpsons (FOX 1989-2016) share common traits with short films and therefore can be analysed in a similar way, using short film theory and analysis it is possible to demonstrate how The Simpsons provides an accurate representation of contemporary American culture. Feltmate explains how “The Simpsons is quickly becoming a recognizable cultural source for examining shifting political, social, and religious trends in the United States.” (Feltmate, 2012) Since its pilot in 1989 The Simpsons has seen an abundance of change to American culture, it has adapted and changed to fit the times in an incredibly sophisticated way in comparison to other animations; episodes have covered the war on drugs, America’s gun laws and immigration.

Raskin developed a theory to assist in analysing short films and published it in his essay ‘Five Parameters of Story Design in the Short Fiction Film’, he stated that each of the five parameters which “makes film stories function optimally” is a “pair of properties that can be thought of as balancing or completing one another.” (Raskin, 2002) When both components are present and balanced “their interplay shapes and enriches the [filmic] event” (Raskin, 2002) These five parameters are “Cause and Effect”, “Consistency/Surprise”, “Image/Sound”, “Character/Object” and “Simplicity/Depth” (Raskin, 2002). To analyse an episode of The Simpsons as a short film in order to demonstrate its place in contemporary culture, it is important to analyse how it utilises those five parameters set out by Raskin.

The main focus for this analysis will be on the episode ‘Much Apu About Nothing’ (FOX 1996) in which The Simpsons explores American attitudes towards immigration and race. For the first parameter for analysis, Raskin described how “It is generally believed that the core of any story which is satisfying to its public, is a chain of cause-and-effect relationships” (Raskin, 2002) Cause and effect is a simple narrative principle, but without it in a short film, feature or television episode the plot becomes weak. In this episode there are several instances of cause and effect: a wild bear causes the residents of Springfield to pay higher taxes in order to patrol the bear, them not wanting to pay higher taxes causes a new bill passed to deport all immigrants, Homer’s character is a spokesman in favour of the bill which causes his family to help their friend Apu gain American citizenship, but all of the immigrants other than Apu still end up getting deported at the end of the episode. This is a form of cause and effect which reverts back to the original problem, and all of it being Homer’s fault for starting the rally that lead to the law being passed whilst also being separately triggered and causally linked to the wild bear; Gerald Prince wrote that “any story must have at least two events which not only occur at different times but are also causally related” (Raskin on Prince, 2002) While the episodes are made for obvious comedy effect, these actions of cause and effect help the writers harmlessly poke fun at American citizens; with the reason behind immigrants getting deported from Springfield being that the residents don’t want to pay as much in tax, and they would rather have a van patrolling the streets looking for one wild bear than having immigrants living in their town. Although being rather stereotypical, for a lot of the world sit-coms such as The Simpsons are their only way of knowing what American culture is like. For Americans, the negative effects of Homer’s actions serve to persuade them against prejudices towards immigrants.

In ‘The Cartridge Family’ (FOX, 1996) a soccer mob causes Homer to get a gun to protect his family, which leads to his wife leaving him, which then causes Homer to re-think his attitudes towards the gun and he chooses his family over it. Similarly, in this episode the writers chose this aspect of American culture to persuade Americans to do the same as Homer and decide against guns. In America the second amendment gives American citizens the right to bear arms, and it has been a topic of debate for many years. This episode, now airing ten years ago, still tackles this controversial aspect of American culture. As such a popular television programme enjoyed by both children and adults, it is important how they use their popularity and their position in culture to try and dissuade people from the negative parts of American life. The first parameter of cause and effect is present and balanced in the episode and in the series as a whole; when cause and effect is balanced the characters act on initiative and make their own choices, as opposed to acting as though programmed or “are reduced to the status of helpless puppets” (Raskin, 2002) when acted on by forces beyond their control which is not the case in The Simpsons.

The second parameter to analyse for The Simpsons and its place in popular American culture is “Consistency/Surprise”.  Raskin says that “Any major character in a short fiction film should have definition, a central core of attributes that remain constant.” (Raskin, 2002) Throughout the long running series of The Simpsons, all major characters have remained constant in their defining nature. For example, in ‘Homer’s Phobia’ (FOX, 1997) Homer befriends a homosexual man, only to abandon him as a friend when he realises his sexuality. The viewer does not find this side of the character familiar to them, so by the end of the episode the two are friends again and Homer apologises. This example shows how even though the character of Homer does something to surprise the viewer, he still remains consistent by the end of the episode. It also serves to demonstrate to American citizens the dangers of homophobia, and by showing Homer’s ideology change it would help change the viewer’s as he is a character many Americans relate to. In order for the balance of consistency and surprise to be effective, Raskin states that “Each successive action should be both unexpected and yet fully compatible with the character definition already established, so that although each new action takes us by surprise, it also strikes us as being "in character." (Raskin, 2002) The characters in The Simpsons never inexplicably act out of character, therefore the balance of consistency and surprise is perfect.

“Simplicity/Depth” is the last parameter that can be used to demonstrate The Simpsons’ place in culture. Rankin observes that "Student filmmakers sometimes assume that in order to have depth, a story must be complicated. Actually, simplicity enhances the possibility for depth.” (Raskin, 2002) Because episodes of The Simpsons relate to issues surrounding the modern day American, as well as issues from the 1980’s and 1990’s, the stories they try to tell are simple. Overall, The Simpsons is about the average American family which is therefore incredibly relatable to the average American audience, conforming to Raskin’s idea that “the viewer must at no point be in doubt as to what he or she is seeing on screen.” (Raskin, 2002) Whilst the stories are simple they are sophisticated when compared to other animations. This is evident when looking at Wells views in ‘Notes Towards a Theory of Animation’, in which he discusses narrative form in orthodox animations. Wells stated that the actions in early animations used to follow their musical score that were “often based on character conflict and chase sequences.” (Wells, 1998) He goes on to explain how a story in orthodox animation should be made by “specific continuity or establishing a situation, problematizing it, creating comic events and finding a resolution, mainly through the actions of the principle character.” (Wells, 1998) In early cartoons like Tom and Jerry these were simply through good vs. evil chase scenes designed for children; however even whilst being an orthodox cartoon, The Simpsons transcends this by having political standpoints, over-arching narratives and even pay homage to classic horror films in the regular ‘Treehouse of Horror’ episodes. Therefore, despite its story being relatable to the audience, The Simpsons still carries a great deal of depth for the modern audience and that of the 1980’s and 1990’s without the need to be experimental.

In turn it is also appropriate to analyse The Simpsons using Well’s theory on short animations. In ‘Notes Towards a Theory of Animation’ (Wells, 1998) he describes how an “orthodox” animation features “Configuration, specific continuity, narrative form, evolution of content, and unity of style.” (Wells, 1998) Despite the aesthetic choices in The Simpsons, for example people having yellow skin, it is undoubtedly an orthodox cartoon. Wells describes this in the section on Configuration, in which he says that orthodox animations must include “identifiable people or animals who correspond to what audiences understand as an orthodox human or animal despite what colourful or eccentric design concept was relating to it.” (Wells, 1998) Even though the characters in The Simpsons have yellow skin, they are understandably still human characters just with different stylistic choices made by the animators.  Wells ideas surrounding specific continuity centre around the concept that no matter what the story of the animation is about, “Whether a cartoon was based on a sequence of a specific and well known fairy tale or story, or was based on a sequence of improvised sight gags” there is still a logical continuity throughout the story even within a “madcap scenario.” (Wells, 1998) This can be used to analyse one of the slightly less orthodox and more experimental episodes of The Simpsons, an example is the episode ‘El Viaje Misterioso de Nuestro Homer.’ (FOX, 1997) The majority of this episode is animated to correspond to a psychedelic experience Homer is having after eating a hot chilli, colours and shapes are distorted and dimensions are played with to give the viewer the feeling that they too are experiencing the same thing as the character. Despite this episode being experimental in its style and improbably in nature, there is still a logical continuity and the story does not suffer. The story progresses due to this, combining Wells’ theories of orthodox and experimental cartoons whilst still remaining relatable to a contemporary audience.

Wells’ views on narrative form in ‘Notes Towards a Theory of Animation’ (Wells, 1998) is linked to his previous idea of specific continuity, orthodox cartoons have a clear narrative structure whereas this is not as vital in something more experimental.  The Simpson’s approach to narrative form ties in with Todorov’s Theory of Narratology (Todorov, 1969), mainstream film’s dominant narrative form. This theory begins with an equilibrium which is then disrupted by a character’s actions, it is recognised and there are attempts at repair, and it ends with a new equilibrium that differs to the original (Todorov, 1969). This is a classical narrative that functions through a ‘realist’ mode of representation using verisimilitude to conform to our culture and true life and human agency to demonstrate the events as a problem and solution to characters’ actions. The Simpsons conforms to Todorov’s equilibrium theory, and because it uses the same orthodox narrative structure as dominant Hollywood cinema it is understandable and relatable to the viewer without compromising the message it tries to send out. By resolving all the problems at the end of every episode, for example in ‘Homer’s Phobia’ (FOX, 1997) and ‘The Cartridge Family’ (FOX, 1996) The Simpsons aims to prove to America that they can change their attitudes towards controversial parts of American culture such as guns and still gain equilibrium just as the characters in the series do.

In summary, it is clear to see that by analysing The Simpsons using short film theories such as Raskin on short film form and Wells on experimental and orthodox animation, it is possible to examine the artistic choices made to reflect the series’ place in popular culture, and its representation of American controversies. The Simpsons presents itself as a representation of American culture to the rest of the world, and serves as a warning to American citizens of how not to act. As a series it is incredibly sophisticated when compared to other orthodox cartoons, most highly acclaimed contemporary cartoons are now leaning towards the experimental, but The Simpsons remains relatable to the average American family whilst carrying a tremendous amount of depth and detail in an attempt to teach its viewers something about life.

‘The Simpsons’ (FOX 1989-2016)

Feltmate, D. (2013). It's Funny Because It's True? The Simpsons, Satire, and the Significance of Religious Humour in Popular Culture. Journal of the American Academy of Religion. 81, 222-248.

Raskin, R (2002). Five Parameters for Story Design in the Short Fiction Film.

Wells, P. (1998). Notes Towards a Theory of Animation. In: Understanding Animation. Abingdon: Routledge. 35-46.

Yeatman, B. (1998). What Makes a Short Film Good? In: Short Film and Cultural Practice.

‘Spectre’ (2015, Mendes) is the twenty-fourth film in the James Bond franchise and the fourth film featuring Daniel Craig as Bond. Before release Craig publically stated that this film would buck the James Bond trends and introduce a new type of Bond girl for the modern female audience. Lea Seydoux plays Dr Madeleine Swann, she can fight for herself, she knows how to use a gun, and yet she is still the damsel in distress for Bond to rescue and ultimately seduce. Dockterman explored this character and pointed out that the fundamental flaw in the representation of gender equality in Bond is that “to modernise the Bond girl is to deprive Bond of his power. To modernise a Bond girl, she has to embody female empowerment and strength without a man. But since he is our hero, it’s unlikely to see a woman save the day.

Even in ‘Spectre’ Lea Seydoux’s character isn’t the first woman Bond seduces, and yet as the film progresses it’s almost as if it is hinting that this is the woman Bond will finally settle down with: he beds widow Lucia Sciarra, played by Monica Belluci, for information about her husband only a short way into the film. Belluci serves only to move the plot along, however unlike in previous films such as ‘Casino Royale’ (2006, Campbell) she at least escapes with her life. The previous deaths of M (Judi Dench) and Vesper (Eva Green) are shown to be important to Bond, however even those serve as plot devices in ‘Spectre’. Christoph Waltz’ character summed it up perfectly when he asked Bond “Did you think it was a coincidence that all the women in your life end up dead?”

It is impossible to examine the misogyny in James Bond without looking back to the earlier films. Despite being given a risqué name, Pussy Galore from ‘Goldfinger’ (1964, Hamilton) had the potential to form the first stepping stone to a more equal Bond. Elizabeth Ladenson explored the difference between Galore and the rest of the Bond girls, not only was she a lesbian character but she was a judo expert capable of fighting for herself. Jaime Hovey wrote about the importance of Pussy Galore, and the importance of how Flemming claimed James Bond “cured Pussy Galore of her lesbianism”. Hovey explores a perfectly resourceful woman like Galore, she resembles a more masculine type of femininity – she can fight like Bond can, she can fly a plane, but she’s also attracted to women like Bond is. According to Hovey, by “curing” her lesbianism and seducing Pussy Galore, Bond transforms her from a ‘butch’ to a ‘femme’ which is the familiar stereotype of femininity to us as an audience for a Bond girl.  If Pussy Galore had remained a lesbian character throughout the film, it would have symbolised an incredible amount of female empowerment. By letting her be seduced by Bond she becomes just another Bond girl added to the pile of his past sexual encounters, another woman yet to challenge Bond’s masculinity.

An interesting character to note the development of is Miss Moneypenny. Moneypenny features in more films than any character other than James Bond himself, making her incredibly important when dissecting the franchise from a feminist perspective. Tara Barbrazon described how even though Moneypenny is a central female character, and that Bond talks to her the same way he talks to other women, this “muffled eroticism” formed the longest unconsummated onscreen relationship, and concludes by saying that Moneypenny remains the woman behind the man (M) and the legend (Bond.)

Even though she is different to the other female characters, Moneypenny is treated the exact same way – in ‘Dr No’ (1962, Young) Bond goes as far to refer to Moneypenny as ‘government property”, and she’s shown to enjoy his sexual advances even if they never go further. However as of yet, Moneypenny has not been killed or sexually assaulted like many other female characters. ‘Skyfall’ (2012, Mendes) saw a change to Moneypenny with Naomie Harris taking over the role as a field agent who helps Bond on his mission. She proves to be useful on the mission, able to drive and shoot, however she ends up shooting Craig’s Bond, ‘killing him’. Because of this her field agent status is stripped from her, and she reverts back to simply being the ‘sexy secretary’ she always was. At least in ‘Spectre’, Moneypenny is no longer shown to lust after Bond, and has a sex life of her own away from him; however, as Dockterman notes, Moneypenny is relegated to reading out instructions for Bond from behind a desk while he drives his Aston Martin. The character developed and then reverted back to how things were in the 1960’s, with Moneypenny sat at a desk being leered at by Bond.

Notably, there is one exception to the rule that all women in Bond are treated the same. In ‘Goldeneye’ (1995, Campbell) the character of M, Bond’s superior, was recast as Judi Dench. In one of their first scenes together, M briefs Pierce Brosnan’s Bond about finding Goldeneye, and the pair share a bottle of whiskey. Comparable to his interactions with Miss Moneypenny or any of the “Bond Girls”, it’s clear she is demonstrating her power over him, and more importantly that he is aware of it. In their first meeting she refers to him as a “sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war.” The first time Bond has ever been challenged on his attitudes towards women, and it’s coming from the character who was recast as a woman. This is a defining step for James Bond towards the equality of gender representation, and it comes as late as 1995. During this first briefing with Bond, M even compares herself to a man by saying “If you think for one moment I don’t have the balls to send a man out to die, your instincts are dead wrong.” She’s attacking Bond where it hurts him the most: his masculinity. By comparing her metaphorical testicles to his, she emasculates him in one short sentence.

 However, as McNeely commented in his essay ‘The Feminization of M’, there are inconsistencies in the way Dench’s character addresses Bond’s misogyny throughout the franchise. McNeely shows how after emasculating Bond in ‘Goldeneye’, she goes on to join in with his flirtation and use of double entendre in ‘Tomorrow Never Dies’ (1997), and even hires Miranda Frost to seduce Bond in ‘Die Another Day’ (2002). With Daniel Craig becoming the new Bond, M’s defining femininity becomes that of the mother, with Bond sarcastically calling her “mum” often. This maternal femininity is often shown in female characters that aren’t shown to be sexual, as opposed to the other prominent female stereotype of the “femme fatale” which is attributed to Bond girls. Ultimately it’s clear that M’s shifting values demonstrate how those behind Bond tried to change their attitudes towards women within the franchise, but gave up and reverted back to conforming to the gender stereotypes that worked so well for them in the past.

Toby Miller in his essay ‘James Bond’s Penis’ examines the franchise as both a contribution to, and symptom of sexism, and compares it to pornography. Clearly the misogyny in 21^st Century Bond isn’t as harmful as that of the 1960’s and 70’s, however attitudes towards women in the world have changed since then, so why not in Bond? Prejudice towards women before the beginning and throughout second wave feminism reflected in women’s on-screen representation. So there is nothing that gives the recent James Bond films the excuse to reflect these now seemingly prehistoric portrayals of women as simply sex objects, other than regarding Bond’s treatment of women as ‘traditional’ of that of the franchise as he has been doing it for so long. If that is so, the image Bond is producing for young boys and men to watch is that treating women like this is acceptable, and even by oppressing women in such a way they still ultimately fall for him.

However, these gender stereotypes are no longer the popular opinion amongst Bond’s audience. In 2015, former Labour party leader Ed Milliband said it was time for a female James Bond and criticised the film’s representation of women, a comment that provoked Martin Daubney to respond that “if the easily offended got their way, they would drain the lifeblood from cinema” and accused the “radical feministas” who disagree with the presentation of women in James Bond of wanting to “neuter every Alpha male in popular entertainment.” This comment from Daubney is evidence enough that James Bond is still stuck in the 1960’s, but people accept that as a British tradition. This shows that misogyny is deemed apparently acceptable in “Alpha male” characters, as that is simply just a trope of their character and part of the “lifeblood” of the modern film industry.

This claim of misogyny as the “lifeblood” of cinema is backed up by statistics released by Women Make Movies, an organisation founded thirty years ago to spread the word of female misrepresentation in cinema. WMM reported that only 11% of all clearly identifiable protagonists are female, with 78% being male.  They also go on to compare how in the highest rated 500 films, 28.8% of women are shown as sexually revealing with 26.2% female actors getting partially naked on screen. There is also still a lack of women behind the camera in modern cinema, with only 1.9% of directors being female. These statistics point to the dark truth that James Bond reflects not only the 1960’s attitudes towards women domestically, but the modern attitudes towards women in cinema.

In summary, as enjoyable as the James Bond franchise is to many people for its cinematography, gadgets and fast cars, under the surface the representation of Bond girls gives a window into the truth about the prejudice towards women in cinema. Not only are the women in Bond films shown as disposable, usually dying as a result of James Bond having sex with them, they only exist to move the plot along and to give the male audience something to look at. This concept is the famous feminist film theory of the ‘Male gaze’ coined by Laura Mulvey; if the Bond girls were taken out of the film entirely it would just be a regular spy film, by adding them in it creates excitement and seduction for the male audience. The lack of power that the Bond girls have reflects the lack of female empowerment of all women in the film industry: surely it is about time for the world to be ready for a more gender equal cinema.

Wade Wilson, the famous “merc with a mouth” – and this time he actually has a mouth, at last. Mr Pool’s sassy back-chatting and shit-talking is what made the reinvented Deadpool one of the funniest films I have seen in a long time.

Without giving away any spoilers, this is a perfect film for not just Marvel or other superhero fans, but anyone who enjoys a good comedy or action. I’ve heard people who have absolutely zero interest in Marvel or any other superhero films who totally loved it. I saw it four days ago and I still can’t stop thinking about it, quoting lines from it and I already need to see it again.

I don’t want to talk about the plot too much as I don’t want to ruin it for people who are yet to see it – but if you’re even contemplating seeing this film, DO. This is a film you can’t wait to see it on DVD, go and see it NOW. The comedy is on point, it’s shot perfectly and the narrative is told amazingly and it keeps you interested for the duration. Ryan Reynolds is also super impressive and really brings the character to life, nailing every single joke every single time.

The meta-humour in particular is what made Deadpool so hilarious for me. It pokes fun at previous films and heroes such as Wolverine and The X Men - with a special appearance from two of Xavier's Gifted Youngsters. This film knows that it's a film, and it knows exactly what it's audience came to see. If you've already seen the trailer you'll have noted Wilson's hilarious fourth-wall breaks that not only move the story along, but do so while making everyone fall on the floor.

Overall, you can probably tell that this film is a solid 10/10. It also has some seriously strong female characters, which is an added bonus in my books. And the soundtrack is A+

Click on Mr Pool to watch the trailer.