The more I think about this episode, the more it doesn’t work for me. I hesitate to criticise it for what it
didn’t do and
should have done because that’s rather trite analysis, but it’s difficult to ignore the different (and infinitely more interesting) directions it could have gone when they leap out at me.
I agree with others who say this took the softest, safest route possible. Homer gravitating to conspiracy theories and the groups they spawn because he feels insecure and humiliated doesn’t ring true to me. Well, it does, but it's only half (or a quarter) of the reality. Sure, conspiracy theorists who are mocked and scorned feel alienated and desire kinship with like-minded individuals who validate their beliefs, but this doesn't
precipitate their engagement with conspiracy theories – it just reinforces and entrenches it. There’s
a lot more involved – a wide range of forces and factors that underpin the phenomenon – but the show seemed uninterested in or oblivious of them.
Excuse my politicising, but here we go:
Conspiracy theories arise out of political cynicism and socio-economic disaffection and displacement. They stem from very real fears and anxieties pertaining to a genuine or imagined loss of safety, security, certainty, and trust as a result of real institutional failures. We all know governments around the world are populated by incompetent if not sinister opportunists who seek to consolidate power and wealth at the expense of everyone else. Is it really that much of a stretch to think they have the resources and capability to orchestrate assassinations, false flag events, and cover ups to achieve that? We all know that big pharmaceutical companies have nothing to gain from curing diseases. Is it really that unreasonable to think they don’t have your best interests at heart, making vaccines threatening and alternative medicines more appealing?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not arguing in favour of these viewpoints, but people have good reason to be sceptical and wary of the systems and structures in our society because the people in charge of them routinely let us down and disenfranchise us. Not to mention the sheer volume of information and stimulus at our disposal with access to the internet. These technological advancements, coupled with late-stage capitalism and various geopolitical events, have made life more chaotic and overwhelming. Is it any wonder that conspiracy theories have spread like wildfire over the last 10-20 years in the wake of 9/11, the Great Recession, the smartphone and social media? Is it any wonder that people seek out tidy explanations and narratives to make sense of the nonsensical and provide
some assurance?
Then there are the psychological factors involved.
Conspiracies exploit doubts and suspicions, leading people down rabbit holes in search of truth and certainty. They offer tantalising mysteries or puzzles to solve, capturing our voyeuristic imaginations and impulses. They feed our ego and pride, convincing us we know something others don’t and serving as an intoxicating outlet for contrarian or oppositional tendencies. They help bring order to chaos, allowing us to organise data and resolve apparent inconsistencies or contradictions. They validate and exacerbate our mistrust or lack of faith in institutions. They stimulate powerful neurological systems that prompt our primal predilection for seeking patterns, confirming biases, identifying threats, and releasing dopamine. Conspiracies can be incredibly seductive for all these reasons.
So you can see why I think
Habeas Tortoise is quite shallow and sophomoric in its treatment of this subject. Was this really the best statement the show could muster in 2022? That people are attracted to conspiracies because they want to feel smart and affirmed? That's woefully insufficient. The episode is better than its most recent analogue (
You Won’t Believe What This Episode is About also co-run by Rob LaZebnik), but only marginally. I criticised that episode for being too broad in its satire and failing to hone in on a brave or incisive argument about outrage culture. This one definitely tries to be more specific, but it lasers in on the wrong point/s. I think it might be
too specific actually, focusing too heavily on the minutiae of Homer’s personal insecurities and missing the forest for the trees. Sorry Selman and co, I know, you’re damned if you do and damned if you don’t.
Toothless is definitely the right word. Where’s the strain that this places on a family when someone goes off the deep end? Why is everyone portrayed so homogenously and sympathetically? Do conspiracy groups even meet in person like this? A lot of this episode doesn’t feel authentic and it's far too sanitised. I wish it were closer to the likes of
Bart’s In Jail or
Poorhouse Rock which were more all-encompassing and hard-hitting.
Homer’s characterization was also the weakest it’s been in some time. Again, it doesn’t ring true to me just how sulky he gets and also how
engaged he is. Homer is insecure, sure, but he shouldn’t be this vigorous. He’s a lazy man who usually wants to be left alone. Wouldn’t it make more sense to have him succumb to conspiracy theories at home browsing the internet? The real Homer wouldn’t go to the effort of organising social gatherings, doing livestreams in public or cooking paella. On that note, the composition of the Lost Leonard group seems kinda random. I can understand Gil being there because he’s always hard done by, Miss Hoover because she’s bitter and jaded, and maybe Comic Book Guy because he’s something of an outcast who’d spend copious amounts of time on the internet. But Chief Wiggum?
Superintendent Chalmers? Where’s Moe? Cletus? Or, hell, even Helen?
I actually don’t think this should have been a Homer-centric episode at all (we already have
The Computer Wore Menace Shoes). I considered Lisa, but
@Frankbags suggested that Marge would have made more sense and I agree. Marge is reasonably intelligent, down-to-earth and rational. She’s often lonely and deprived of a social circle. She’s also the glue that keeps the family together. It would have been more impactful if
she had been the one to go down the rabbit hole (clever little joke, btw, but it didn’t need explaining to us), fracturing the family as she loses herself to the kind of echo chamber extremism that the internet fosters. Imagine an inciting incident where a fear, anxiety or suspicion proved true, turning her away from her family and the mainstream media in favour of insular conspiracy groups that get increasingly detached from reality and radicalised. That would show some courage from a writing standpoint and allow for a stronger point to be made.
I think I’ve written more than enough at this point.
Habeas Tortoise misses the mark in a big way, but I didn’t hate it. The plot was fairly competent on its own terms, there was some clever joke writing worthy of some light chuckles, and it certainly wasn’t hampered by the kind of weird third act turn that
You Won’t Believe What This Episode Is About pulled on us. It was also less confusing than that episode in its messaging (though arguably just as ineffectual). I just wish this was edgier, harsher, and more focused on the wider issues associated with the likes of QAnon with a better character at its core.
2/5 at this point in time.
Whatever! Hoover/Gil's sudden love, wedding (in other, maybe entire one-episode story that might could work, but no way from now), and the story setting, essentially rounds there. And went actually too far out of box.
Also I liked Fox/Disney prediction… I mean joke
Also the line (as I read by Broti Gupta herself) "the zoo is a bunch of kidnapped animals"
.
