Monty Can't Buy Me Love
Wealth can buy a lot. It can even buy a narrative. But the fact is, unless properly tended and maintained, it can only last so long. I feel like there's been a long succession of "hero billionaires", businessmen who show themselves as much more altruistic than their counterparts. I'm sure many believe their own hype and I watched talk shows where hosts I liked and respected (and mostly still do) acted awed and impressed by their intent and accomplishments. Elon Musk was the big one but now I don't see anyone beyond the unmovable fanatics who want to touch the guy. And any public appearance makes Musk even MORE villainous, even when we think we've hit the lowest point. Well, he's not going to stop trying and is going to appear on SNL this Saturday. But the fact is, the damage is done and Musk is probably beyond PR rehabilitation. And thank God, because he clearly is someone who isn't interested in changing and probably doesn't think so. Self-delusion is a hell of a drug and money is a Hell of a fuel.
In this episode, Burns takes note of the popularity of billionaire charismatic billionaire Arthur Fortune and realizes he lacks public affection in his life. Burns decides to warm up to the common man, he'll need his input and gets help from Homer Simpson. But with every attempt, Burns can't win the public's love. As a desperate effort, Burns decides to catch the Loch Ness Monster and succeeds but during the press conference accidentally runs amok and becomes even less popular. Homer suggests Burns not even bother and Burns accepts it.
I remember a few TT folks mentioning this as a noted "bad" one and I didn't remember it that way. And rewatching it... its reputation is a bit much, but it isn't that great. Its another one where the potential is there but the final product is just a little lukewarm. Its a John Swartzwelder script and while he remains a great joke man, the more loosy-goosy tone of the later seasons means the great jokes aren't anchored to a great story and that's a shame. I think the problem is where the focus should be. The episode is about Burns wanting to find love and there's is a great, classic thematic hook: in hunting a monster, Burns becomes far more monstrous, flooding a town and setting fire to a dock. But I feel like while this seemed clever and fun in the planning stages, the mechanics of making it all work feel a little creaky. After all, the biggest evil is Burns destroying a town but somehow the capper of the episode is Burns accidentally burning a dock. It feels like the rules of escalation should end in town destruction or at least when he returns to Springfield, he looses love in a more intimate act of evil, like betraying someone.
I will say that Nessie being real doesn't bother me. A real monster is a bit of a step over the conventional reality of the Simpsons world. Like, I feel the rule is impossible shit can TOTALLY happen if its for a joke and not for the main plot, so this is a bit odd. But my problem isn't this instead of a lack of insight. I think on paper there's something in exploring the kind of evil Burns is... almost effortlessly, meaning that even when pursuing something that isn't evil, like love, he will do it in an evil way. The best example is Lisa saying "When you try to be good, you're even more evil.:" And I think that's something that can be great to explore, especially in relation to public fascination with flashy "altruistic" billionaires. But frustratingly, it has nothing much to say towards Burns as a character or Richard Branson-like trendsetters.
I think a lot of the pieces are there but I feel like some of the plans faded into the background, either in the writer's room (I think it was Dana Gould who said if you are precious about your script, don't bring it to the Simpsons because that's not how the process on that show works) or when it went from outline to finished product. It doesn't even feel messy or disjointed, a feeling I have with a LOT of later episodes. It just feels sort of blandly meaningless with some solid gags. And look, I know generally as a critic you are supposed to review what you saw rather than suggest "should haves" but its so easy to see paths to stronger episodes. Burns is a great character and I like the idea of him being love starved, learning the wrong lessons and perverting the nature of love based on his atrocious worldview but this is an episode where the journey is "I need love/No I don't" and in between we are getting a disappointing lack of understanding of how this guy works.
Jokes I missed before:
Other great jokes:
"Fine, if we're not going to do anything, we'll just talk about our day. I wrote another poem about a duck.:"
I love that she wrote it on a piece of paper shaped like a duck.
"Oh, look, there's the place where I buy my yarn. But you don't want to buy your buttons there."
"Phew, well I dodged a bullet.:"
"Now THERE'S the place you want to buy your buttons."
"Oh, looks like something exciting his happening. We'll have to read about it in tomorrow's paper."
"I'm sorry. I am really sorry. Oh, ach, I don't know what I was thinking. But Field of Dreams was good, wasn't it? Made us all believe again?"
"Once again my underwear has become tangled in a cow catcher."
"Books and cocoa in the same store. What's next, a talking banana?"
"Uh, I don't see one, sir."
"O, of course, the very idea of a talking banana is absurd. But still..."
Cricket poison is a good bit.
"This isn't the monsterometer. Its the frog exaggerator."
"That was amazing Mr. Burns."
"I was a little worried when he swallowed me but, well, you know the rest."
I like how the expression on their faces say that they don't and somehow, despite being there, they are in the same position the audience is.
I don't think the climax quite works but the monster's friendly face goes a long way to selling it.
Other notes:
The Jerry Rude bit isn't very good. Its pretty generic shock jock parodying. The original plan was originally to get Howard Stern. Instead, Jerry Rude is played by the always great Michael McKean. He does good work but a shame he doesn't get a lot to say that's particularly funny.
There's not much of a reason of Smithers to just... disappear from the episode.
"Does the opening scene mirror the themes of the episode" watch 2021:
The episode begins with the Simpsons being lazy as fuck. In the end, Homer notes that being a good person takes hard work, while being a shit means not bothering. The takeaway is Burns realizing that he doesn't NEED anyone's approval but that barely works in the story we've seen. Its more interesting as a tale of a man who thinks he will be entitled love by grand gestures and just doesn't and will never get what it takes.
