The Simpsons introduces a new boyfriend for Smithers, without punching down—or up
In "Portrait Of A Lackey On Fire," Smithers makes a real love connection with a character voiced by Victor Garber
TV Features The Simpsons
Centered on the ticky-tacky marriage of Homer and Marge, The Simpsons is still perhaps one of the most hetero TV shows out there. It’s also pure and certain comfort at this point, which is why I have rewatched so much of it during the pandemic. For 33 seasons, the cartoon has been microwave popcorn and Mountain Dew. To that end, I don’t expect Springfield to destroy gender or feature any fully realized, dildo-wielding femmes, but I do expect the familiarity and warmth of an after-school snack.
That’s not to say The Simpsons is without its cruelties. When queerness does emerge on the show, it’s historically at the expense of Waylon Smithers (Harry Shearer), Mr. Burns’ long-abused personal assistant. Mr. Smithers’ attraction to Mr. Burns is a poorly kept secret throughout early seasons, with the writers exploiting his gay shame in the name of frat-boy humor. In season four’s “Marge Gets A Job,” Mr. Smithers has a romantic vision of Mr. Burns flying into his bedroom window at night. Here, queer desire is coded as grotesque and pathetic, a reflection of how broadcast TV generally painted LGBTQ+ lives at the time.
Thankfully, three decades of different writers and politics have changed Smithers’ place on the show. In more recent seasons, his sexuality has become an open part of the narrative. The series’ latest episode, “Portrait Of A Lackey On Fire,” accomplishes what it sets out to: For 15 minutes, Mr. Smithers has a boyfriend who treats him well without his sexuality being a punchline. The story is as safe as a Pride parade with the sweetness of an old-school drag show. Imagine a set of straight parents who are trying their best to support and bond with their gay child. That’s the vibe—we’re not gonna get a vibrator.
The first act of the episode begins at Mr. Burns’ mansion, where a new litter of “the hounds” have just been born: “Four boys, three girls, and, uh, one who would prefer not to be labeled yet.” Mr. Burns (also Shearer) tasks Smithers with their training, which involves using Homer (Dan Castellaneta) as an attack dummy. As the puppies chew up Homer, Smithers bemoans his unrequited love for his boss.
The B-plot takes off as Mr. Burns then discovers a jigsaw puzzle sent by Warren Buffett and tries to make heads or tails of it. His slow understanding of the puzzle he’s putting together reemerges throughout the episode to add a bit of on-brand, aloof humor. It’s expectedly charming.
Meanwhile, Homer discovers Smithers crying alone in a dog kennel, longing for companionship and love. Homer offers encouragement, and after reviewing the dating profiles on “U.S. Male Service” (which features a quick rundown of all the gay characters featured throughout the show), decides to play queer matchmaker for Smithers (“I’m gonna find you a man-Marge!”). The “ally” playing haphazard wingman is a well-worn device in the sitcom world: Sex And The City and The Office, among many others. It’s used as a way of assuring viewers that their main characters are straight but not narrow.
Mr. Burns pawns off the murderous puppies to other corrupt businessmen, shaming the one friendly dog left behind. A smooth fashion designer named Michael de Graaf (guest star Victor Garber) steps up to adopt the pet, casually identifying himself as gay and giving Homer the opportunity to set up Smithers. An opposites-attract connection comes out as the two men click and embark on a passionate, open love affair.
This nearly seamless visibility implies that Springfield embraces Smithers’ sexuality and wants to see him happy. It also gives the writers a chance to further flesh out the supporting cast while making good on the series’ earlier mistreatment of queer characters, including Smithers. In fact, the real clown here is Luigi’s homophobic mother, who gets her own queer arc. “Lackey” has been billed erroneously as the first time Smithers has had a real relationship, but it’s actually his second; he got together with Julio (originally voiced by Hank Azaria, now voiced by Tony Rodriguez) in season 27’s “The Burns Cage.”
However, much of the episode’s sweetness comes from behind the scenes. Written by the father-and-son duo of Rob and Johnny LaZebnik, the episode served as a bonding experience as Rob brought in Johnny, an openly gay man, to add his lived perspective to the production’s themes. The younger LaZebnik, who never formally came out to his parents but received boatloads of unwavering support from his family, grew up with his father writing for the show and intuitively understands how it can evolve without patronizing its audience. The result is still very much The Simpsons, but it’s a punch across instead of a punch down—the writers now know how to make fun of Mr. Smithers without dehumanizing him. We get big PFLAG energy without the franchise losing its salt.
That’s quite an accomplishment. Does it imperfectly operate on stereotypes? Sure, and it’s clear that showrunner Al Jean and his team are trying to figure out how to balance that part of The Simpsons’ flavor with their own progressive political values. “Portrait Of A Lackey On Fire” is ultimately a winning story because it treats Smithers with the same special blend of ridicule and tenderness it bestows upon the straight characters.
34 Comments
Among the phrases I hope the blogosphere leaves behind when 2022 arrives: “Punching up/down” as the main description of art. It leads to bad takes and analysis as critics try to suss out who the punchline is, and which way it’s punching, and leads lesser talents to aim for the correct punching direction for their audience. It was a useful metaphor for ten minutes ten years ago but the reductive thinking the phrase has led to has soured both the review and the art landscapes where it was embraced. I lose respect for people who use it. “This art is punching down, but my art is more worthy because it is punching up!” Have you tried not hitting people at all? I do not trust your ability to discern direction, and your “up” is often someone with less status than you on another axis, and I don’t think you noticed or cared when you pulled back your fist.
It may be a reductive lens to view comedy through, but it’s still something mainstream comedy frequently struggles with, let alone be anywhere near transcending.Besides, you talk of “lesser talents”, but thoughtless material tends to be lazier and hackier. The Simpsons understood that back in 1998.
OATER
Sorry that people worried some comedy might hurt already vulnerable people upsets you so much.
Are they ever allowed to no longer be “vulnerable” to you? Or do you need them to remain your object of pity?
You’re sooooooo brave and such a good person. Just thought you should know that. Congrats on all your important work.
I still think it’s important to look at when things are punching down/up. It can be the difference between something funny that’s had some work put into it and something that’s just lazy for a laugh. Also, not surprisingly, comedy that punches up tends to have longer legs.
Believe it or not, comedy that “punches down” is infinitely funnier. They are so because the audience knows it’s wrong.
I think it’s a fine concept, and in general “punching up” is funnier than “punching down”, that’s just the way comedy works, it’s not about being ethical or whatever, it’s just usually more amusing to mock authority. It just bugs me when people use the term as if that’s all you need to say about the issue. “Punching down” doesn’t automatically mean something isn’t funny, just like “punching up” doesn’t automatically mean something is. It’s just a lazy term people use when they don’t want to engage with the full spectrum of comedy.
Didn’t expect to see such a smart statement on here. Most commenters have become the clapping seals such simplistic ‘up/down’ ‘left/right’ “analysis” has trained them to be.
A spectacularly bad take
What a non-influential thing this is. 30 years ago it would have been ground-breaking… now it’s just pandering.
Does it have to be one of the two?If this thing is same-old, then can’t it just be a storyline like the rest?
The John Waters episode will always be the mostly joyously gay episode.
The absolute best. Then again, it has John Waters who is also the absolute fucking best.
Meh, call me when the Simpson has its first hard core gay sex scene. I want to see yellow asses being pounded!
I feel like you may be watching the cartoon for different reasons than these other commentors.BETTER reasons.
I’m sure you can find that in certain corners of the internet already.
Back in the day sure, but these days the kids don’t care. They all want to see Rick pounding Morty’s sister and the entire cast of Steven Universe fucking and sucking.
Don’t know how you can talk about LGBTQ+ representation without discussing the brilliant “Homer’s Phobia” episode.
I regret that it’s taken me almost 25 years to get the pun.
Is the Gay Steel Mill a bit stereotypical? Yes. It is still one of the funniest things I’ve ever seen? You bet!
“Hot stuff, comin’ through!”
*shriek!*
The delivery of, “We work hard, we play hard” was iconic.
– “You’re all sick!!!”
– “Oh, be nice!”
Homophobia in two sentences.
Or a more recent episode where they did a similar episode but for Marge’s sister, Patty.
Ouu another way to try and stay relevant…I wish I could still love this show its just so cookie cutter and boring now.
Gee, it’s almost like The Simpsons continues to produce quality television, even in Season 33, and all the people who constantly bitch about the show’s decline in quality don’r actually know what they’re talking about…
The two preceding episodes ( a standalone – non canon Fargo style dark comedy double episode )were actually genuinely good .Its possible that the Simpsons has hit that sort of American Dad late fox/TBS era thing that no one expects anything from the show anymore , so the current writers are allowed experiment , which can give rise to some damn good episodes.
In the early days of The Simpsons, I always thought Smithers’ unrequited love for Mr. Burns was more of a sign of his slavish devotion, further enhanced because Mr. Burns clearly didn’t give a shit about him or anyone else. Unfortunately, making him actually gay and writing jokes about him being closeted kills the joke. I like this though. The current crop of Simpsons writers are focusing on sincere character development again, and we’re in desperate need of that.
Yes, the show made jokes at Smithers’ expense but it made jokes at everyone’s expense, and The Simpsons has a small city’s worth of characters. And I never took the jokes as being about his homosexuality; they were about Smithers having an idealized (and sexualized) vision of an awful, awful man. It was an extension of his brown nosing. Taking that away from the character is taking away what made him funny.The show has done that a lot over the years. Barney used to be a pathetic drunk, and then they made him sober. Flanders was an annoyingly cheerful guy with a perfect life, they turned him into a tragic character by making him a widow. Edna Krabappel’s love life is sad? Have her fall in love with him. We’re not laughing at them anymore. We’re barely laughing at all.
No offense if anyone genuinely found it touching or it spoke to them or whatever, but it seems like there’s been a huge and honestly baffling marketing push for this completely unremarkable episode. It doesn’t seem groundbreaking or unique in any way? The Simpsons has had gay romances it took seriously before, Homer has even set Smithers up before. I just feel like I’m in a different century when I read so many articles about how this episode means anything at all. It’s so confusing why this is getting so much attention, I can only assume it’s been forced into media by the Simpsons marketing department. It was entertaining enough but if the Simpsons really wants to be progressive they should have a character transition or something (seriously).
“Mr. Smithers has a romantic vision of Mr. Burns flying into his bedroom window at night. Here, queer desire is coded as grotesque and pathetic, a reflection of how broadcast TV generally painted LGBTQ+ lives at the time.”Grotesque and pathetic? Wow. I think that says more about you and your intolerant world view than it does about Smithers. I always thought of it as sweet and romantic, that Smithers, a person who was at this point usually portrayed as an emotionless tool, actually has deep romantic feelings and experiences love (especially unrequited love) in the same way as everyone else. I deeply related with Smithers at this point, who is caught in a love triangle and shares Burns’ romantic ideals (and Burns’ dreams), but knows he will never get what he wants because the person he loves is perpetually in love with someone else. It’s Shakespearian writing, and gives Smithers the kind of emotional depth that other secondary characters never come close to.
As a gay man I agree and applaud your reply. Nothing in this scene tells Smithers or us he is grotesque and pathetic. His desire is played straight (sorry). The humor comes from the visual of Mr Burns flying through the window, not from Smithers being shamed that he’s gay. And as you say showing the fantasy adds a tragic element and emotional connection to Smithers, making it layered like a lot of classic Simpsons.But I guess it’s all in the eye of the beholder and his grotesque worldviews
You can always tell the shittiest writers by their use of the phrase “punching up/down”.