MovieChat Forums > CarolTheDabbler > Replies
CarolTheDabbler's Replies
Small world department: Apu was voiced by Hank Azaria, AKA Phoebe's "science guy."
I've never watched The Simpsons, but this sounds kinda like the days when Hollywood had Italians playing all the (American) Indians and Alec Guinness playing a Japanese guy. Or actually, since it's voices, it's more like the old radio days, when they had white guys playing black characters (e.g., Amos 'n' Andy) -- kinda weird, in other words, considering there were actual black actors available.
Goodness knows there are plenty of good (Asian) Indian actors, so I can see as how it would have made more sense to hire one of them to do Apu. They could presumably have done a more authentic accent (meaning no offense to Azaria), and could in subtle ways have made the character more authentically funny.
Apparently everyone on The Simpsons is a caricature, but most of them are written and performed by people of a similar ethnicity, who understand the group's foibles. It's always been very tricky to do caricatures of someone from another ethnic group (or even the other sex!) without it ending up sounding like ridicule. This was true long before the "woke" crowd started beating it to death.
Ace_Spade, if this forum had a "Like" button, I'd have just clicked that. I think you've nailed it -- though I haven't seen the entire series all that recently, and am just at the end of season 1 on this rewatch, so I reserve the right to change my mind.
One point of disagreement, though -- I like Ross for who he was in the first few seasons, and hated it when they ruined him over a sandwich.
That's one of my favorite storylines (possibly because I really like Tom Selleck and I sort of identify with Monica). A 20-year age difference is unusual, but certainly not unheard-of as long as the people involved are both adults. I thought they handled it very realistically, with various people's reactions and the way they wrapped it up.
Oh, and the scene where Monica encounters him again (after they broke up the first time) and doesn't recognize him because he doesn't have a mustache -- that was hilarious! As I recall, they played fair with the audience, showing Richard pretty clearly in the background as she walks past him -- but Selleck really does look entirely different without the mustache.
There are multiple overlapping story arcs, so if you watch randomly, you'll miss some jokes and you'll be puzzled by some things that happen. As a general rule I'd advise watching in order.
I never quit watching, exactly, but Ross had been my favorite character, so I didn't like the show as much after the "moist-maker" episode. I thought they took a sweet, unassuming, likeable character and turned him into a jerk.
We're watching our box set now (just finished season 1), so I'll see if I feel any differently.
Judging by what Paul says, though, he doesn't seem to realize that he ever was -- and presumably still is -- legally married to Svetlana, because he thinks of it as "just a paper marriage" that was over and done with in a couple of days. As I said above, the "over and done with" part is not realistic, but apparently the writers weren't aware of the hurdles involved in a green-card marriage. But anyhow, it probably never occurred to Paul to mention that "fake" marriage on his application to marry Jamie.
There is indeed a later episode where Paul & Jamie find out they're not legally married -- but NOT because of Paul's prior marriage! So apparently the writers didn't realize (any more than Paul did) that "paper marriages" don't just evaporate in a few days.
If this had been a movie or a novel, I'd be more critical of the writers, because they should have done more research. But in a series episode that has to be completed (written, cast, rehearsed, filmed, dubbed, scored, etc.) within just a few weeks, there may simply not be enough time, so people tend to go with their assumptions. Either that, or they assume that the audience won't think too hard about it. Which is generally true, I suppose -- though not as true as it was pre-DVD.
Just encountered another "mean" episode, this time in Season 7. In Episode 9, "Farmer Buchman," Mabel falls in love with a toy belonging to the son of a colleague of Paul's, and the toy accidentally ends up in her stroller. The colleague is a very pleasant fellow, with whom Paul has apparently had a congenial and productive business relationship. The toy (not available in the US) is the favorite of his son. But Mabel loves it too, so that makes it OK for the Buchmans to just slyly keep it????
Yes, she was, but don't blink or you'll miss her. In S2E3, "Bedfellows" (when the family visits Burt in the hospital) the actress Randy Graff is billed as "Sharon, Paul's Elder Sister."
She's also mentioned in S6E15, "The Second Mrs. Buchman." When Burt is comes up to bat in his senior softball league, the announcer lists his family members. We just saw that one, so I'm aware of the mention, but I suspect she was mentioned in a few other episodes as well.
Thanks for your explanation regarding window screens! I had been half-assuming it was because most shows are produced in the Los Angeles area, where I don't recall seeing as many screens in real life (presumably because there aren't nearly as many bugs as here in the Midwest). But production values are a far more comprehensive explanation.
And you're right, it didn't seem to occur to them that they might alienate (or minimally, confuse) their audience by abruptly switching from their established "real life" mode into farce. Of course the show was originally aired one episode per week, so it might not have been such a jolt back then, but we've been watching two episodes every evening, so it was about like being hit in the face with a pie.
"The Cockatoo" -- The bird is clearly someone's harmless pet, yet rather than close the windows and calmly lure it into a confined space (does Murray have a kennel cage?) where it can be given food and water till its owner is found, Paul repeatedly swats at the poor bewildered thing. (Lucky he didn't break its wing!) Then, still making no effort to find its owner, he tries to sell the bird, then tries to give it away. (How would he like it if Murray got lost and was treated that way?) Thanks to sheer luck, all is well by the end of the episode, but it wasn't a fun ride.
As for the other plot, where Jamie notices some suspicious behavior among campaign staff members, was that ever resolved? Seems like, as the manager, she should have investigated.
This episode also highlights a minor aspect of the series that has puzzled me from the beginning: Haven't people in New York heard of window screens? OK, perhaps they're not legal on windows where there's a fire escape, but that reminds me of another puzzler: I'm pretty sure that in an early episode someone mentioned there being no fire escape on the living-room window. But even though one does seem to have been added later, there are still no fire escapes on the building in exterior shots.
"The Touching Game" -- Seemed to me like Jamie's half of the episode belonged on <i>I Love Lucy</i>. Her awkwardness is ridiculously exaggerated FAR past what I've ever observed in a real-life pregnant woman, yet she never seems to notice the havoc she's wreaking. Paul's behavior (trying to be helpful to someone he thinks is a pregnant woman) is perhaps more understandable, but it too was exaggerated and prolonged till I lost patience.
This show seemed at its best when it primarily dealt with Paul and Jamie's interactions with each other. Rather than dividing each of these episodes into separate "his" and "hers" stories, they might have been better off picking one and fleshing it out more to involve both of them.
Was another sister mentioned?
<blockquote>IMO, for at least a couple decades, there have been only 2 quality sitcoms: Seinfeld & Mad About You.</blockquote>
It's good that we don't all like the same things, keeps life interesting.
I like Mad About You well enough to own the box set and rewatch all the episodes now and then.
But Seinfeld -- not so much!
<blockquote>... it's called the classic overbearing, Jewish mother whose son marries a shikse (sp?)....</blockquote>
Is Jamie definitely non-Jewish? I assumed so at first, but then it occurred to me that her maiden name is Stemple, which is an Americanization of Stempel, which can be a German-Jewish name. And according to Wikipedia, "[Helen] Hunt's paternal grandmother was from a German-Jewish family...."
Did the show ever clarify Jamie's ethnic / religious background?
He played Chaplain Olson in S7E2, "A Pain in the Neck."
You could try a Goodwill store or other thrift shop.
No, it's actually kind of anti-climactic. Jamie happens to be lying on the floor for unrelated reasons, and sees the mouse hiding under a piece of furniture.
I was utterly amazed that for "Dream Weaver" they had gotten several actual "Laugh In" cast members -- Jo Anne Worley, Henry Gibson, Arte Johnson, and Gary Owens -- who looked hardly any older than they had 25 years earlier.
<blockquote>Considering how neurotic and bitchy Debra is, there's no way she'd be cool with John leaving her for their housekeeper, regardless of whether or not she cheated.</blockquote>
Presumably true -- she's too "entitled."
And -- perhaps more importantly -- it wouldn't work from Flor's point of view, assuming she's a Catholic. Even if John gets a divorce, he'd still be married in the eyes of the Church, so they couldn't have a church wedding. Even if they had a civil ceremony, the Church would say they were living in sin. She's clearly a very moral person, and if she's also very devout, there's no way she could justify being with John, either to herself or to her daughter.
I haven't seen the movie for years, but I've been thinking that a divorce would enable John and Flor to be together. I'm not a Catholic, though, so I wasn't thinking like one. I did some research recently (in order to understand a situation in my own family), and now I really don't see any way for it to work. With that being the case, her staying would be far too painful for both of them, so her only logical course of action is to leave.
The ending is tragic, in the dramatic sense of the word.
We are now, mercifully, done with the entire series. having watched the finale tonight. It wasn't bad, and it did wrap things up, and -- hooray! -- they used the original opening theme.
We're now watching the final season, and the really good episodes are still few and far between.
So I got to wondering, did the creators write the first bunch of episodes, then hand it over to others, who tended to drop the torch a good bit of the time? So I checked to see who wrote the six episodes of season 1 versus the 22 episodes of season 2, expecting to see that switch -- but no. All 28 episodes of the first two seasons were written by David Angell, Peter Casey, and David Lee -- the three creators of the series.
So I'm now trying to decide between two theories:
1. The three creators fussed over those first six episodes, taking the time needed to turn out finely crafted scripts, but then had to go into hurry-up mode to come up with 22 episodes for the second season.
2. I greatly enjoyed the first few episodes because they felt fresh to me (not having seen them since the network run), but then tired of subsequent episodes because they kept relying on the same kinds of stuff as the first six.
Or maybe some of each.