The Simpsons' Shakespeare: Hamlet Today. Possible Meanings and Consequences of a Parodic Appropriaton
10.13125/2039-6597/690
Lo Shakespeare de I Simpson: Amleto oggi. Possibili significati e conseguenze di una appropriazione parodica &nbsp;All&rsquo;interno di una cornice teorica che include la teoria della ricezione e le teorie sulla afterlife di Shakespeare, questo saggio intende illustrare come l&rsquo;Amleto di Shakespeare sia stato riscritto per il pubblico contemporaneo ne I Simpson, la famosissima sitcom animata che, similmente al drammaturgo inglese, si configura come una  icona mondiale e come un fenomeno globale. Il saggio prender&agrave; in esame,  innanzitutto, la rappresentazione di Shakespeare risultante da diversi  episodi in cui compare. Si passer&agrave;, poi, all&rsquo;analisi della parodia dell&rsquo;Amleto presente in un singolo episodio della serie, sottolineando come tale  appropriazione parodica sia una lettura contemporanea del testo  rinascimentale e come essa possa influenzare la circolazione del play nella societ&agrave; odierna.
application/pdf
2039-6597
690
4
en
Maria Elisa Montironi
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
Between
appropriation
The Simpsons' Shakespeare:<i> Hamlet </i> Today. Possible Meanings and Consequences of a Parodic Appropriaton
Text.Serial.Journal
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between
2
Words and Images
2012-12-20
2012-09-02
2012-12-04
2021-05-24
1
Maria Elisa Montironi
2012/12/20
10.13125/2039-6597/690
Università degli Studi di Urbino Carlo Bo
2039-6597
4
appropriation
en
The Simpsons' Shakespeare:<i> Hamlet </i> Today. Possible Meanings and Consequences of a Parodic Appropriaton
https://ojs.unica.it/index.php/between/article/download/690/4724
2
     The  SimpsonsȂ  Shakespeare:  Hamlet  
      Today.  Possible  Meanings  and  
         Consequences  of  a  Parodic  
               Appropriation.  
                              Maria  Elisa  Montironi  


                                      Introduction  
       The   Simpsons   is   the   title   of   the   22-­‐‑year-­‐‑old,   extremely   successful  
animated   sitcom   created   by   the   American   Matt   Groening,   and  
produced  by  Gracie  Films  for  Twentieth  Century  Fox.  It  features  funny  
yellow-­‐‑skinned  characters  who  represent  social  stereotypes.   The  main  
characters  are  the  members  of  a  typical  American  family,  living  in  the  
village   of   Springfield   Ȯ   site   of   a   nuclear   power   plant.   This   family  
conȱȱǰȱȱȱ ǰȱȱȱȱƺȱȱȱ
Lisa,   both   attending   elementary   school,   and   little   Maggie   ƺ,   and   their  
two  pets,  a  cat  and  a  dog.  Besides  being  very  popular1,  The  Simpsons  is  
also   culturally   strong,   as   the   steep   rise   in   the   number   and   variety   of  
scholarship  about  the  show  has  clearly  demonstrated2.  
       The  cartoon  has  been  even  used  to  exemplify  the  thoughts  of  the  
most  prominent  philosophers  in  the  world,  from  Aristotle  to  Nietzsche  
and   Heidegger.   Moreover,   there   are   several   books   which   uncover   the  


      1
          Suffice  it  to  mention  that  a  2006  survey  on  American  people  reported  
that   the   names   of   the   yellow   members   of   The   Simpsons   family   are   better  
known   than   the   five   fundamental   First   Amendment   freedoms   (McCormick  
2006).  
       2  See  Alberti  2004,  Keslowitz  2006,  Delaney  2008  and  Turner  2010.  




Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/  November  2012)  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



insightful   reflections   on   the   many   aspects   of   American   and   Western-­‐‑
ized   society   that   can   be   found   in   the   sitcom,   also   commenting   on   the  
way   the   sitcom   itself   affects   the   society   it   is   depicting   (see   White   and  
Holman  2011).  Also,  there  are  important  works  on  the  literary  aspects  
of   the   sitcom,   primarily   about   its   post-­‐‑modernity,   clear   in   its   use   of  
parody.   As   Linda   Hutcheon   states:   «The   modern   world   seems   fasci-­‐‑
nated  by  the  ability  of  our  human  systems  to  refer  to  themselves  in  an  
unending  mirroring  process»  (1985:  1)3.  
       The   Simpsons   have,   however,   attracted   only  scattered   attention   in  
the   field   of   Shakespearean   studies   (see   for   example   Fernández   2005:  
314   and   Purcell   2009:   112-­‐‑113).   This   is   surprising,   mainly   because   the  
tradition  of  Shakespearean  references  in  the  long-­‐‑running  sitcom  is  rich  
and  thought-­‐‑provoking.  This  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that   this  topic  is  
widely  discussed  on  the  web,  both  by  ȁconnoisseursȂ  in  academic  blogs  
and  web-­‐‑sites4,  and  by  ȁamateursȂ  of  Shakespeare5,  who  post,  comment  
and  discuss  The  SimpsonsȂȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ¢ȱp-­‐‑
pear.  
       Through   the   analysis   of   The   SimpsonsȂȱ ȱ ȱ Hamlet,   and  
through   a   reflection   on   the   relationship   between   the   «cultural   fields»6  
of  Shakespeare  and  the  The  Simpsons,  this  paper  illustrates  how  Shake-­‐‑
Ȃȱ Hamlet   has   been   formatted   for   contemporary   audience,   and  
suggests   the   possible   implications   of   this   interaction   in   both   fields:  
what   is   implied   by   this   particular   trans-­‐‑medial   transaction   of   the  
Ȃȱ ǵȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
in  the  sitcom?  

                                                                                                  
                   3  See  for  example  Henry  1994,  Weinstein  1998  and  Kippen  1999.  

                   4                                  http://transmedialshakespeare.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-­‐‑
simpsons-­‐‑and-­‐‑shakespeare-­‐‑love-­‐‑affair/,  web  (last  accessed  03/03/2012).  
                   5  
                                      http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/blogs/entry/ghostbusters-­‐‑the-­‐‑
modern-­‐‑day-­‐‑hamlet,  web  (last  accessed  03/03/2012).  
                   6   The   notion   of   cultural   field   is   borrowed   from   Bourdieu   for   Shake-­‐‑

spearean  studies  by  Sonia  Massai,  this  concept  implies  that  «Shakespeare  can  
best  be  understood  as  the  sum  of  the  critical  and  creative  responses  elicited  
by  his  work»  (Massai  2005:  6).  


2  
                                            Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  




           Shakespeare  and  The  Simpsons,  why  not?  
       The  masterpieces  of  the  Swan  of  Avon  and  the  hilarious  stories  of  
the  yellow  characters  of  Springfield  only  apparently  belong  to  different  
and   distant   dimensions.   The   triumphant   animated   sitcom,   indeed,  
shares   with   the   Bard   more   than   one   feature,   primarily   its   status   as   a  
worldwide  icon,  thus  a  global  phenomenon.  ȱȂȱafterlife  
turned  the  Bard  into  a  sort  of  brand  so  that  one  can  rightly  speak  of  the  
existence   of   a   ȁShakespeare   logoȂ   comparable   to   Nike   or   Coca-­‐‑Cola   is  
undeniable   today,   and   many   scholars   have   demonstrated   it   since   the  
1990s   (see,   among   others,   Bristol   1996,   Hodgon   1998,   Lanier   2002   and  
2007).   As   early   as   1964,   Christian   Deelman,   while   reconstructing   the  
first  Shakespearean  Jubilee  of  1769,  defined  the  event  as  the  beginning  
ȱȁ¢Ȃǰȱǯǯȱȱȱȱǯȱ  
       Something   very   similar   can   be   stated   about   The   Simpsons.   Just   a  
year  after  their  first  appearance  on  television,   Herry  Waters  described  
the   sitcom   as   «a   breakaway   ratings   hit,   industry   trendsetter,   cultural  
template,  and  a  viewing  experience  verging  on  the  religious  for  its  most  
fanatical  followers»  (Waters  1990:  272,  my  italics).  The  fact  that  the  se-­‐‑
ries   is   a   powerhouse   and   a   money-­‐‑making   industry,   is   self-­‐‑evident.  
Suffice  it  to  say  that  the  yellow-­‐‑skinned  family  deserved  a  star  on  the  
Hollywood   Walk   of   Fame   in   2000,   that   internationally   Simpsons.   The  
Movie  (2007)  was  a  box-­‐‑office  success,  that  there  are  innumerable  gadg-­‐‑
ets  of  the  show  characters,  and  that,  as  stated  above,  it  also  provides  a  
field  of  research  for  scholars.  
       Furthermore,   The   Simpsons   ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ y-­‐‑
wright   have   in   common   the   fact   of   dealing   with   a   similar   means   of  
communication.   Eminent   Shakespeare   scholars   defined   the   theatre   of  
Shakespeare   a   mass   communication   medium,   Paola   Pugliatti,   for   ex-­‐‑
ample,   wrote:   «In   Elizabethan   England   the   theatre   represented   for  
many,   from   court   to   commoners,   a   crucial   opinion-­‐‑making   medium,  
intimately   interwoven   with  the   social,   economic   and   political   features  
of  the  age  and  therefore  a  phenomenon  whose  impact  on  the  construc-­‐‑
tion,   or   enforcement,   of   ideology   cannot   be   overlooked»   (2010   :5),   ex-­‐‑
actly  as   that  of  television  today.  That  what  people   watch  and  hear  on  


                                                                                                3  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



television  does  affect  their  attitude  towards  reality  (way  of  life,  politics,  
opinion  on  news  items,  and  so  on)  has  been  widely  discussed7.  
         As  a  consequence,  a  further  feature  shared  by  ShakeȂȱ¢s  
and  The  SimpsonsȂȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ
thus,  the  multileveled  kind  of  reception  to  which  they  respond.  Indeed,  
Karma   Waltonen   and   Denise   du   Vernay   are   right   when   they   observe  
that   «just   as   Shakespeare   wrote   under   the   constraints,   attitudes   and  
expectations  of  his  time,  so  do  the  writers  of  The  Simpsons»  (2010:  188).  
This  statement  leads  us  to  at  least  two  additional  observations:  first  of  
all  it  is  interesting  to  highlight  that  in  a  book  boldly  called  The  Simpsons  
in   the   classroom,   about   how   to   successfully   integrate   the   sitcom   in   the  
lessons   of   high   school   and   college   teachers,   which   is   published   after  
many   academic   studies   about   the   cartoon,   still   there   seems   to   be   the  
need   to   justify   the   idea   of   introducing   a   pop-­‐‑cultural   issue   into   the  
education  system.  Secondly,  and  more  importantly,  it  is  worth  under-­‐‑
lining   that   the   best   way   to   legitimize   a   still   un-­‐‑canonized   cultural   ex-­‐‑
pression  is  the  time-­‐‑honoured  one  of  co-­‐‑opting  Shakespeare  ȯ  mainly  
but   not   only   in   the   Anglophone   world8.   This   happens   because   of   the  
cultural   value   of   Shakespeare   as   an   icon.   As   Douglas   Lanier   states:  
«Shakespeare  symbolizes  high  art  in  general»  (2007:  15).  
         This   practice   is   evident   in   the   book.   In   the   preface,   the   authors  
specify   that   to   really   understand   the   series,   one   should   have   a   solid  
cultural   background,   which   includes   Shakespeare   (Karma   Waltonen,  
Denise   Du   Vernay   2010:   4).   Moreover,   they   write:   «Some   students,  
when   they   hear   The   Simpsons   is   on   a   syllabus,   assume   they   will   be   in  
ȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱ¢ȱȱǽǳǾǯȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱȱ
that   Shakeȱ ȱ ȱ ȁpopular   culȂǰȱ »   (ibid.:   6).   This   mir-­‐‑
rors   the   general   assumption   that   Douglas   Lanier   acutely   describes   in  
his  book  on  Shakespeare  and  modern  culture:    
           
                                                                                                  
                   7   On   this   topic   see   Iyengar   -­‐‑   Kinder   1987,   Moy   -­‐‑   Xenos   -­‐‑   Hess   2005,  

Compton  2008,  Ortved  2009,  Baumgartner  -­‐‑  Morris  2006.  
                   8   The   literature   on   this   topic   is   wide.   For   a   seminal   work   see   Dobson  

1992.  


4  
                                                    Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



           ȱȱǽǳǾȱȱ¢ȱǰȱsable,  
       immediately   accessible,   and   therȱ  ǯȱ ǽǳǾȱ ¢ȱ ntrast,  
       Shakespeare   is   aesthetically   refined,   timeless,   complex   and  
       ¢ȱ ȱ ǽǳǾǯȱ ȱ ȁȂ   in   Shakespeare   and  
       popular  culture  marks  not  just  a  link  but  a  distinction.  This  drive  
       to   keep   Shakespeare   and   popular   culture   apart   is   shared   by   both  
       those   who   lament   that   popular   culture   has   been   displacing   our  
       cultural  heritage,  and  by  those  who  champion  popular  culture  as  
       the  peopleȂs  literary  canon.  (2002:  3)  
        
      Indeed,  in  the  book  by  Karma  Waltonen  and  Denise  DuVernay,  in  
the  chapter  devoted  to  the  development  of  critical  thinking  one  reads:  
        
          Teaching   critical   thinking   and   analysis   through   a   familiar  
       ȱȱȱȁȱ Ȃȱȱǰȱȱ ȱȱȱ
       from   instructors   from   the   old   school,   but   rather   it   serves   as   an  
       exercise   in   having   analytical   skills,   preparing   students   to   apply  
       these   skills   to   the   humanities,   and   writing   through   the   lens   of  
       ȱ ȱǯȱ¢ǰȱȱȂȱȱntimidating  as  
       he  used  to  be.  (ibid.:  112)    
        
      Culturally,   this   has   an   important   democratic   effect,   since   Shake-­‐‑
speare  «ȱȱȱȱȂȱitution»,  as  Jane  Austen  wrote,  
and   it   has   been   demonstrated   that   in   England   at   least,   the   social   dis-­‐‑
tinction  between  those  who  know  Shakespeare  and  those  who  do  not,  
thus  between  those  who  access  high  culture  and  those  who  do  not  with  
the  cognate  social  consequences,  begins  at  school9.  
                    




                                                                                                  
                   9   This   concept   has   been   stated   by   Helen   Nicholson   in   her   conference  

ȱȃȁȱ Ȃ  Ȃ:  Citizenship,  Britishness  and  Theatre  EducaȄǰȱ
given  at  the  Local/Global  Shakespeares  conference,  held  in  London  on  11-­‐‑13  
September  2009.  


                                                                                                           5  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  




      Shakespeare  and  The  Simpsons:  a  long  ghost  story  
         The   Simpsons   are,   in   Harold   Ȃȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ e-­‐‑
speare,   just   as   our   culture   is.   The   name   of   the   English   playwright   is  
present  since  the  second  episode  of  the  series  (but  the  first  regular  one),  
ȱ ȃȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻŘǰȱ Řǰȱ ŗşşŖǼǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃȱ -­‐‑
Ȅǰȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱi-­‐‑
brary  of  a  school  for  gifted  children,  which  Bart  happens  to  attend  after  
secretly  replacing  his  IQ  test  with  that  of  his  brilliant  school-­‐‑mate  Mar-­‐‑
tin  Prince.  To  corroborate  the  thesis  of  this  paper,  it  is  very  interesting  
to  point  out  that  once  Bart  is  asked  to  choose  a  book  among  the  many  
on   the   bookcase,   he   takes   a   cartoon,   to   the   embarrassment   of   the  
teacher,  who  tries  to  persuade  Bart  to  choose  something  else  (there  are  
Ȃȱ ,   Plato,   Paradise   Lost,   The   Life   of   Leonardo   and   many   oth-­‐‑
ers),   while   snatching   the   cartoon   out   of   his   hands,   wondering   how   it  
could   happen   that  a   cartoon   was   there.  The   situation   satirizes   the   un-­‐‑
just   but   widespread   attitude   of   teachers   and   academics   towards   what  
belongs   to   pop-­‐‑culture,   such   as   cartoons,   commonly   considered   the  
low  aspect  of  culture  that  must  be  subordinated  to  high  culture.  
         Shakespeare  is  also  present  in  some  episode  titles  which  echo  the  
titles   of   his   plays,   such   as   ȃȱ ȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻŘřǰȱ ŝǰȱ ŗşşŜǼȱ
where   the   name   of   the   (stereotypical)   Indian   market   owner   of   the   sit-­‐‑
ȱȱȱȱȃȄǰȱȃRome-­‐‑Old  and  Julie-­‐‑ȄȱǻŗśǰȱŗŞǰȱŘŖŖŝǼȱ
a  word  game  based  on  the  plot  of  the  episode,  which  revolves  around  
ȱ ȱ ȱ  ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ȃȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ
¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ Ȃȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȃȱ dsum-­‐‑
Ȃȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻŘŘǰȱ ŗŜǰȱ ŘŖŗŗǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ot   of   the  
Shakespearean  ȱȱȂ  Dream.  Moreover,  Shakespearean  
quotes  are  frequent,  chiefly  made  by  the  character  of  Sideshow  Bob,  a  
(self-­‐‑proclaimed)   cultivated   man   (contradicted   among  other   things   by  
his  habit  of  checking  Shakespearean  quotes  in  Wikipedia),  who  works  
in  the  field  of  television.  Eventually  in  the  series,  he  becomes  a  criminal  
ȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȃȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻŗŞǰȱ Ŝǰȱ ŗşşśǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ g-­‐‑
Ȃȱȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ Othello  ǻȃTo  be  now  a  sensible  
man,  by  and  ¢ȱȱǰȱȱ¢ȱȱȄǰȱ ǯ),  when  he  surpris-­‐‑


6  
                                              Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



ingly  participates  in  a  film  festival  with  his  own  black  and  white  work  
on  the  terrible  life  of  an  alcoholic.  In  doing  so,  he  does  not  use  Shake-­‐‑
speare  in  an  art-­‐‑for-­‐‑art  sake  manner,  but  functionally,  to  express  him-­‐‑
self  and  describe  a  concrete  and  contemporary  social  problem.  To  use  
ȱ  Ȃȱ ǰȱȱ«means  by  Shakespeare»  (1992:  3).  
       Most  interestingly,  in  some  cases  Shakespeare  is  shown  as  a  char-­‐‑
acter   in   the   very  form   of   a   ghost,  in   the   special   episodes   made   by   the  
ȱ ȱ  ǯȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ȱ s-­‐‑
ȱ¢ȱȱȱǯȱ ȱȃȱȱ ȱ ȄȱǻŚǰȱŘŖǰȱ
ŘŖŖŞǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃ¢ȱ Ȅǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
many  other  pop-­‐‑cultural  celebrities,  such  as  John  Lennon,  are  revolting  
against  the  unpaid  exploitation  of  their  image.  This  funny  idea  acutely  
mirrors  what  Michael  Bristol  accurately  and  critically  demonstrated  in  
his  book  on  the  canonical  status  of  the  Bard:  
                     
         Shakespeare  has  made  the  big-­‐‑time.  No  less  than  The  Beatles  or  
      Liberace,  Elvis  Presley  or  Mick  Jagger,  Shakespeare  is  big-­‐‑time  in  
      the  idiomatic  sense  of  cultural  success  and  widespread  notoriety.  
      Not   only   has   he   achieved   canonical   status,   Shakespeare   is   a  
      contemporary  celebrity.  (1996,  blurb)  
                           
       These  spirits  are  all  completely  white,  with  the  exception  of  their  
heads,  still  yellow,  and  mirror  their  globally  known  icons.  Shakespeare  
wears  a  Renaissance  suit  and  John  Lennon  is  on  board  the  famed  yel-­‐‑
low  submarine.    
       The   plot   of   this   episode   revolves   around   a   group   of   managers  
who  do  not  want  to  pay  VIP  image  rights  and  thus  convince  Homer  to  
kill  some  celebrities,  because,  as  they  say,  he  seems  to  be  talented  for  it.  
Iȱ ȱ ȱ  ȱ ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻśǰȱ Śǰȱ
1992),   Shakespeare   is   a   zombie   walking   through   the   corridors   of   Bart  
ȱ Ȃȱ ¢ȱǰȱ ȱ ȱ ¡¢ȱȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱogether  
with  the  zombies  of  the  American  President  Washington  and  of  Albert  
Einstein.   Homer   shoots   the   playwright   saying   the   typical   sentence   of  
horror   films:   «Shows   over   Shakespeare».   The   Bard   falls   down,   and  
with   his  head   turned   to  the   audience   asks   himself:   «Is   this   the   end   of  


                                                                                                  7  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



Zombie  Shakespeare?».  That  was  not  the  end  of   Zombie  Shakespeare,  
and   it  never   will   be,   because,   as   Sideshow   Bob   reminds   us   in   another  
episode,   the   Bard   is   immortal   ȯ   and   reception   theory   explains   to   us  
that  he  is  immortal  also  thanks  to  this  cartoon.    
       The   most   important   evidence   of   the   influence   of   Shakespeare   in  
the   cartoon   are   the   episodes   which   bear   clear   allusions   to   Shake-­‐‑
Ȃȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻŘŖǰȱ ŘŖǰȱ ŘŖŖşǼǰȱ
ȱ ¡ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃ¢ȱ Ȅǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
and  Marge  are  no  more  the  father  and  mother  of  a  contemporary  fam-­‐‑
ily,  but  play  different  roles.  They  both  work  in  a  theatre  company,  cur-­‐‑
¢ȱȱȂȱMacbeth.  From  this  metatheatrical  per-­‐‑
spective,   The   Simpsons   provide   a   contemporary   reading   of   the   Shake-­‐‑
spearean  play10ǯȱȱȱ¢ȱǰȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȂȱ ȱ
woman   and   her   husband   Homer   is   a   humble   actor   with   a   ridiculous  
part  in   the   production:   one   of   the   trees   in   the   forest.  Thus   she   pushes  
Homer  to  kill  other  actors,  in  order  for  him  to  gain  the  title  role  and  to  
be   judged   as   the   best   actor.   Marge/Lady   Macbeth   is   finally   killed   by  
her   sense   of   guilt,  since   she   is   haunted   by   the   spirits   of   all   the   people  
ȱȱ ȱǯȱ ȱȱǰȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱȱ
and  his  wife  proclaims  he  is  now  the  one  and  only  actor  who  can  play  
the   protagonist   role   in   all   the   plays   written   by   the   Bard,   but   Homer,  
overwhelmed   by   the   idea   of   reading   more   Shakespeare,   commits   sui-­‐‑
cide.   This   parody   is   only   apparently   desecrating.   Once   again,   Shake-­‐‑
speare  has  been  used  to  speak  to  a  contemporary  audience,  Homer  has  
actually   done   what   he   overtly   declares   to   dislike,   i.e.   reviving   Shake-­‐‑
speare.  The  same  premise  informs  The  SimpsonsȂȱ¢ȱȱHamlet.    

                                       The  SimpsonsȂȱHamlet  
          If   among   the   English   writers   of   the   past   William   Shakespeare  
must  be  considered  the  most  ȃanxiety-­‐‑inducing  of  allȄȱ(Corcoran  2010:  
2-­‐‑3),  Hamlet  must  be  assigned  the  same  leading  role  among  his  works.  
In  his  fundamental  book  Shakespeare  our  contemporary  Jan  Kott  wrote:  
                                                                                                  
                   10  For  a  good  and  clever  analysis  see  Antinora  2010.  




8  
                                                Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



                   
          The   bibliography   of   dissertations   and   studies   devoted   to  
         ȱ ȱ  ȱ ȱ £ȱ ȱ  Ȃȱ ne   directory.   No  
      Dane  of  flesh  and  blood  has  been  written  about  so  extensively  as  
         ǯȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ  ȱ
      representative   of   his   nation.   Innumerable   glossaries   and  
      commentaries  have  grown  round  Hamlet,  and  he  is  one  of  the  few  
      literary   heroes   who   live   apart   from   the   text,   apart   from   theatre.  
      His  name  means  something  even  to  those  who  have  never  seen  or  
      read   ShakeȂȱ ¢ǯȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
      Ȃȱ ȱ ǯȱ ȱ  ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
      have  seȱȱǯȱǽǳǾȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȱ
      us   now,   but   all   those   who   have   tried   to   analyze,   or   imitate,   that  
      smile.  (1991:  47)  
                      
         Coherently   to   this   idea,   HamletȂȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ The   Simp-­‐‑
sonsǰȱȱȱȱȃȱȱȱȄǰȱs  embedded  in  the  episode  
ȃȱ ȱ ȱ Ȅȱ ǻŘŖŖŘǼǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ naissance  
play,  as  Kott  sharply  states,  can  be  considered  as  a  story  of  public  do-­‐‑
main,   that   is   to   say   both   known   by   and   belonging   to   the   people,   and  
thus  to  the  masses  too.  In  this  episode,  Homer  gets  a  notice  from  the  li-­‐‑
brary  that  he  still  has  a  book  of  classic  tales  that  is   years  overdue.  He  
takes  the  dusty  volume  from  a  shelf  and  reads  aloud  to  Bart  and  Lisa  
the  stories  of  Ulysses,  Joan  of  Arc  and  Hamlet.  Through  the  metatheat-­‐‑
rical  technique  which  features  the  sitcom,  each  tale  is  told  in  the  form  
of   a   parody,   where   the   main   characters   of   the   series   take   the   roles   of  
the   famous   stories.   Since   they   are   featured   as   contemporary   society  
stereotypes,   this   fact   easily   endows   the   story   told   with   modern-­‐‑day  
meaning.  Furthermore,  coherently  again  to  what  Jan  Kott  wrote  about  
the  play  of  the  Prince  of  Denmark,  The  SimpsonsȂȱHamlet  is  informed  by  
the  most  known  critical  apparatus  on  the  play.    
         First  of  all,  Homer  introduces  the  play  telling  its  name  and  author,  
«Hamlet   by   William   Shakespeare»,   and   immediately   after   the   ȁsacredȂ  
work  is  exposed  to  the  words  of  the  irreverent  Bart,  who  states:  «Dad,  
ȱȱȱȂȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ǯȱȱ



                                                                                                    9  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



Bochco11   could   kicȱ Ȃȱ ».   Through   these   comic   words,  
ȱ¢ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢Ȃȱȱ ȱ
and   Renaissance   theatre   writing,   which   is   rightful   and   proper   for   the  
reasons  advanced  above.  Lisa,  his  intelligent  sister,  tries  to  interest  him  
¢ȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ȱȱ ȱȱȱȱȱȂȱa-­‐‑
ther.  To  this  information,  Bart  replies:  «Cool.  Does  he  get  to  marry  his  
mom?».   Homer   answers   to   his   son:   « ȱ Ȃȱ  ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
hot».  Obviously,  here  there  is  the  parody  of  the  endless  criticism,  at  the  
ȱȱȱȂȱǻŗşŚŞǼȱȱȱfȂȱǻŗşşŖǼȱȱȱ
the  play,  that  reads  the  character  of  Hamlet  through  the  pattern  of  the  
Oedipus-­‐‑complex,   which   has   been   correctly   described   as   Freud   best  
known  concept  and  the  most  repulsed  one  (De  Berg  2003:  78-­‐‑83).  This  
exegetic  line  is  used  at  the  beginning  of  the  cartoon  parody.  
       Indeed,  when  Homer  reads:  «Once  upon  a  time  there  was  a  young  
prince  of  Denmark»,  we  are  shown  Bart  in  the  role  of  Hamlet,  sleeping  
in   bed,   and   on   the   wall   of   the   bedroom   there   is   a   sign   that   reads  
«Danes  Do  It  Melancholy»,  a  comic  sentence  that  also  refers  to  the  sex-­‐‑
ual   and   psychological   connotations   of   the   story,   corroborated   by   a  
painting  hung  on  the  wall  representing  the  wedding  of  Gertrude  with  
Claudius  and   a  mortified  and  moped  Bart/Hamlet  in  the  background.  
As   stated   by   Sigmund   Freud,   Jacques   Lacan   and   Ernst   Jones,   among  
ǰȱȂȱHamlet  may  be  said  to  live  a  reawakening  of  the  
ȱ¡ȱȱȱȂȱrriage.  Both  the  fact  of  consider-­‐‑
ing  sex  melancholy,  that  is  to  say  as  a  way  of  rejoining  the  origin,  and  
the  representation  of  the  sorrowful  reaction  to  the  new  couple,  not  only  
achieve  comic  effects  of  their  own  but  they  also  become  satirical  in  rela-­‐‑
tion   to   the   critical   notes   just   mentioned.   Moreover,   in   the   series   the  
character  of  Bart,  whose  name  is  a  telling  anagram  of  brat  (Korte  1997),  
has   a   conflicting   relationship   with   his   father,   who   frequently   gets   an-­‐‑
gry  at  him  and  tries  to  choke  him.  This  is  particularly  congenial  to  this  
oedipal  interpretation  of  Hamlet,  and  bridges  the  gap  between  the  past  


                                                                                                  
                   11   Steven   Bochco   (born   1943)   is   an   American   television   producer   and  

writer,  author  of  great  hits  which  include  L.A.  Law  and  NYPD  Blue.  


10  
                                               Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



ȱ Ȃȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ iȂȱ ¡ǰȱ
making  these  family  dynamics  meaningful  for  our  time.  
         ȱȱȱȱȱȱȂs  ghost.  We  watch  him  entering  
the  room  to  ask  for  revenge  through  the  wall  and  producing  the  green  
slime   which   unequivocally   reminds   us   of   the   famous   green   ghost  
Slimer,  featured  in  the  movie  and  eventually  television  animated  series  
called  Ghostbusters.  Homer,  as  a  Simpsons  character,  shares  with  Slimer  
the  inclination  to  gluttony  and  this  fact  is  used  to  make  a  parody  of  the  
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
«ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ fast   in   fires,   /   Till   the   foul   crimes   done   in   my  
¢ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȧȱ ȱ ȱȱ Ȃȱ  ¢Ȅȱǻ ǯǯŗŗ-­‐‑13,   italic   mine)».  
Precisely,  when  Homer  says  «Yes  I  have  returned  from  the  dead»,  Bart  
replies   «ȱ ȱ ¢Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ »,   which   has   an  
ironic   effect   if   one   thinks   of   the   Shakespearean   lines   quoted   above.  
Consequently,   the   ghost   tries   to   choke   him,   but   he   cannot   because   of  
ȱȁȂȱǯ  
       After   a   one   minute   re-­‐‑enactment   of   the   murder,   where   we   see  
Moe/Claudius   put   the   poison   in   Homer/old   HamȂȱ ear,   the   rest   of  
the   parody   is   quite   exclusively   centred   on   the   banquet   scene.   The  
metatheatrical   scene   par   excellence   in   the   Shakespearean   canon,   be-­‐‑
comes,   in   this   parody,   a   way   to   criticize   contemporary   television,  
mainly  TV  cabarets,   a  frequent  target  of   satire  in  this  animated  series.  
The   Simpsonean   show   man,   Krusty   the   Clown,   plays   the   role   of   the  
leading  actor  of  the  company  invited  to  court  by  Hamlet.  As  a  typical  
stand-­‐‑up  comedian,  he  makes  a  fool  of  a  member  of  the  audience,  a  Vi-­‐‑
king,   sitting   up   front   ȯ   thus   using   the   improvisation   abhorred   by  
Hamlet  ȯ  with  a  politically  uncorrect  joke:  «And  if  your  idea  of  a  first  
ȱ ȱ ȱ  ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ǳ   a   Viking!».   This  
modern   pattern   of   comedy   has   the   effect   of   linking   the   courtly   situa-­‐‑
tion   with   the   television   entertainment   today.   Since,   as   it   has   been  
widely  stated,  in  Hamlet  Shakespeare  explores  the  nature  and  power  of  
drama,   trough   The   SimpsonsȂȱ Hamlet   we   are   invited   to   explore   the   na-­‐‑
ture  and  power  of  television.  
       When  Marge/Gertrude  praises   the  oblivion  brought  about  by  the  
jesters,  when  Bart  satirizes  the  suspension  of  disbelief  at  the  basis  of  so-­‐‑


                                                                                                  11  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



liloquies,  and  when  Krusty  the  Clown,  before  performing  what  Hamlet  
asks   to   perform,   warns   the   audience   saying:   «Now   we   would   like   to  
warn  you  that  our  performances  tend  to  make  audience  members  blurt  
out  hidden   secrets»,   The   Simpsons   provide   a   sharp   satire   of   television,  
   ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ nsciences,   or   to  
reflect   upon   reality,   but   are   more   commonly   planned   to   provide   a  
fruitless   escape   from   reality,   a   Freudian   consolation   for   the   misery   of  
life.  Instead,  The  Simpsons  promote  and  are  an  example  of  a  television  
whose  task  is,  in  the  words  of  Hamlet,  «ȱȱȱȁ ȱȱȱȱ
to  nature»  (II.ii.17-­‐‑19)  for  an  awakening  of  society.    
        Through  the  show,  Claudius  ȯ  played  by  Moe,  who  in  the  series  
ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȯ   is   unmasked.   It   fol-­‐‑
lows   a   fast   and   long   chain   of   deaths,   which   differ   in   manner   and  
causes,  more  or  less  evidently,  from  those  of  the  source  text.  According  
to  Gerard  Genette  (1982),  the  modification  of  the  conclusion  is  the  most  
manifest   kind   of   modification   in   an   adaptation.   My   idea   is   that   these  
departures   from   the   Shakespearean   text   are   made   to   highlight   a   con-­‐‑
temporary   interpretation   of   the   play.   Lisa/Ophelia   dies   when   she   de-­‐‑
clares   that   nobody   will   drive   her   crazy.   Immediately   after   this   state-­‐‑
ment,   she   begins   to   sing,   to   jump   on   the   table   and   meets   her   death  
jumping  out  of  the  window.  We  can  assume  she  drowns,  because  at  the  
beginning   of   the   scene   we   were   shown   a   moat   around   the   castle,   but  
   ȱȱȱȱȱȱȱǰȱ ȱȂȱ n-­‐‑
ing  happens  offstage  as  well.  Lisa,  the  feminist  little  girl,  plays  Ophelia  
underlying  what  feminist  criticism  says  about  this  character:   «She  has  
been  shaped  to  confirm  to  external  demands,  to  reȱȂȱ»  
(Dane  1998:  406),  she  lacks  her  own  identity,  but  her  madness  and  her  
final   choice   to   die   are   seen   as   self-­‐‑sure   and   autonomous   acts,  
«OȂȱȱ ȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢  courageous   ȯ  indeed  ra-­‐‑
tional   ȯ   ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ¢ȱ »   (ibid.:   423).   In   The  
SimpsonsȂȱ¢ǰȱȱȂȱȱȱȱaȂȱǰȱȱȱ
interpretation   of   a   deliberate   independent   action   to   be   free   from   the  
impositions  of  other  people  is  even  more  believable.  And  the  death  of  
all  the  other  characters  are  shown  as  completely  irrational.    



12  
                                                Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



        ȱ Ȃȱ ǰȱ ǰȱ ȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ n-­‐‑
ning   around   with   a   sword   in   his   hand,   kills   Polonius   while   stabbing  
the  curtain  to  discover  who  was  hiding  behind.  Before  dying,  as  in  the  
theatre   of   the   absurd,   Polonius,   played   by   the   coward   Chief   Wiggum  
of   Springfield,   declares   that   he   was   hiding   for   fear   of   being   stabbed.  
Finally,   he   asks   his   son   Laertes   to   revenge   his   death.   This   last   role   is  
¢ȱ ¢ȱ ǰȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ǰȱ arful   and   definitely  
not  clever  ȯ  may  be  a  way  to  recall  the  interpretations  of  Laertes  as  a  
weak  sole,  usually  deduced  from  his  crying  words  commenting  his  sis-­‐‑
Ȃȱ ȱ ǻȱ ŗşşśǼǯȱ £ȱ ȱ Guildenstern   are   played   by  
ȱ ȱ ¢ǰȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
with   their   names   in   the   parody:   «Rosencarl   and   Guildenlenny».   They  
both   die   in   an   absurd   way,   poisoned   because   they   touch   each   other  
immediately  after  saying  that  since  Claudius  brushed  their  body  with  
poison,   they   were   potentially   lethal.   Then   Ralph/Laertes,   asked   by  
Claudius  to  kill  Hamlet,  stabs  himself  without  a  reason  and  falls  to  the  
floor,  thus  Claudius  exclaims:  «Oh  Boy,  did  I  bet  on  the  wrong  horse».  
Then,   Bart   stabs   Claudius   and   is   about   to   go   away   and   celebrate.   But  
he   slips   on   blood,   and   exclaiming   «[b]loody   floor!»   he   dies.  
Marge/Gertrude   has   an   equally  ridiculous   death:   she   commits   suicide  
because,   otherwise,   she   should   clean   up   the   bloody   and   messy   room.  
There  is  a,  once  again  contemporary,  reflection  on  female  roles  in  soci-­‐‑
ety:  they  are  usually  still  domestic.  
       From  this  conclusion  we  get  the  clear  idea  of  a  series  of  reasonless  
deaths,   of   a   feudal   world   more   than   of   a   Renaissance   one.   Bertolt  
Brecht,   who   adapted   and   discussed   the   play   many   times,   underlined  
this  fact.  Hamlet  is   not  the  scholar  of   Wittenberg,  but  a  feudal   prince.  
Indeed,   in   this   Simpsonean   parody   we   are   shown   that   hung   on   the  
  ȱ ȱ Ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃȄ 12.   The  
SimpsonsȂȱ ȱȱȱȱȱ ȱ¢ǯȱThe  SimpsonsȂȱ


                                                                                                  
                   12  Consciously  or  unconsciously,  this  interpretation  of  Hamlet,  as  a  man  

capable  of  the  illogical  brutality  needed  for  kingship  in  a  feudal  age,  mirrors  
the  Brechtian  one  (see  Heinemann  1996).  


                                                                                                   13  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



parody   of   Hamlet   is,   therefore,   what   Linda   Hutchen   calls   parody:  
«[R]epetition  with  critical  distance»  (1985:  6).  
      When   the   story   telling   ends,   Lisa   defines   Hamlet   «the   greatest  
thing   ever   written!»,   but   Bart   rebuts   the   statement   and   describes   the  
play   as   boring.   In   the   end,   indirectly   pointing   out   the   importance   of  
rewritings  and  of  reception  to  hand  down  culture,  Homer  states:  «Son,  
Ȃȱȱ¢ȱȱȱ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȱȱǰ  called  Ghost-­‐‑
busters.»  At  this  point,  all  the  family  starts  dancing  on  The  Ghostbusters  
sound   track.   The   accuracy   of   this   last   statement   is   not   so   important,  
and   indeed   it   seems   difficult   to   deny   and,   all   the   same,   to   accept13.  
Anyway  it  is  a  way  of  presenting  Hamlet  as  belonging  to  a  contempo-­‐‑
rary  appealing  genre,  as  a  ghost  story,  and  a  funny  strategy  for  mediat-­‐‑
ing  the  cultural  distance  of  the  Bard.    

 Conclusions:  The  Simpsons  up  to  high  culture,  Shake-­‐‑
                speare  back  to  the  people  
       This  paper  has  suggested  that  Shakespeare  according  to  The  Simp-­‐‑
sons   is   a   topic   worth   investigating.   Recently,   insightful   studies   on   the  
reception  of  Shakespeare  have  invited  us  to  leave  behind  the  old  ques-­‐‑
tion   of   the   existence   of   an   objective   and   authentic   Shakespeare   and  
conceive  the  Bard  as  «a  series  of  culturally  specific,  multiply-­‐‑mediated»  
entity  (Lanier  1996:  188),  as  a  «fluid»  (Bryant  2002)  and  ever  changing  
ȃȱȄǰȱȱ¢ȱȱȃȄǰȱȱȱȱ¢ȱ¢ȱȱr-­‐‑
ȱ ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ usceptible   to   change  
ȱȄȱǻ ȱŘŖŖşǱȱŜŞǼȱȱȱȱȱȱp-­‐‑
propriation  (Lanier  2002).  As  an  instance,  and  indeed  a  very  visible  and  
global   one,   of   the   Shakespearean   canon,   The   SimpsonsȂȱ ȱ ȱ
going  to  influence  its  interpretation.  


                                                                                                  
                   13  A  convincing  explanation  of  the  possible  relationship  can  be  found  in  

a   blog-­‐‑ȱ ȱ ȃGhostbusters,   the   modern-­‐‑day   HamletȄǰȱ
http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/blogs/entry/ghostbusters-­‐‑the-­‐‑modern-­‐‑day-­‐‑
hamlet  ,  web  (last  accessed  03/03/2012).  


14  
                                             Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



       The   analyses   of   The   SimpsonsȂȱ Hamlet   has   demonstrated   that,  
through  the  cartoon,  the  play  circulates  in  our  society  bearing  the  criti-­‐‑
cal  apparatus  on  the  work,  and  suggesting  one  possible  modern  mean-­‐‑
ing   of   it,   giving   input   to   see   it   from   a   contemporary   perspective,   and  
also   presenting   it   as   something   easily   enjoyable.   Shakespeare   is   used  
by  The  Simpsons  as  an  engine  of  cultural  appropriation  (Dawson  2002),  
through  which  one  can  reflect  upon  the  modern  world.  All  this  bridges  
the  chronological  dȱ ȱȱȱ¢Ȃȱǰȱ
and  also  the  unjust  sociological  distance  between  Shakespeare  and  the  
masses.   People   on   the   net   discuss   the   Shakespeare   they   find   in   The  
Simpsons   and   thus   ȯ   consciously   or   unconsciously   ȯ   contribute   to  
keep   on   the   Shakespearean   canon   in   the   multimedial   era,   through   its  
circulation  in  multimedial  channels.    
       Ultimately,  ȱȂ  use  of  Shakespeare  has  a  double  and  di-­‐‑
chotomic  effect.  It  has  an  elitist  effect,  which  gives  The  Simpsons  the  de-­‐‑
served  status  of  high  (or  at  least  worth  studying)  culture  and,  together,  
it   has   a   democratic   effect,   which   helps   to   hand   down   ShakeȂȱ
plays  from  generation  to  generation  and  to  make  them  meaningful  not  
only  within  the  ivory  towers  of  high  culture,  but  also  among  the  peo-­‐‑
ple,  that  is  to  say  among  those  for  whom  they  were  originally  written.  

        




                                                                                                15  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  




                                     Bibliography  
                                             
       Alberti,   John   (ed.),   Leaving   Springfield.   The   Simpsons   and   the   Possi-­‐‑
         bility   of   Oppositional   Culture,   Detroit,   Wayne   State   University  
         Press,  2004.  
       ǰȱ ǰȱ ȃThe   Simpsons,   gender   role   and   witchcraft:   the  
            ȱȱȱȱȄǰȱElectronic  journal  of  theory  of  
         literature   and   comparative   literature,   3   (2010):   115-­‐‑130,  
         http://www.raco.cat/index.php/452F/article/viewFile/208093/27
         7271,  online  (last  accessed  03/08/2012).  
       Baumgartner   Jody   Ȯ   ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȃThe   Daily   Show   effect:  
         ȱǰȱ¢ǰȱȱȱ¢ȄǰȱAmerican  
         Politics  Research,  34  (2006):  341-­‐‑367.  
       Bristol,   Michael,   Big-­‐‑Time   Shakespeare,   London-­‐‑New   York,  
         Routledge,  1996.  
       Bryant,  John  L.,  The  Fluid  Text.  A  Theory  of  Revision  and  Editing  for  
         Book  and  Screen,  Ann  Arbor,  University  of  Michigan  Press,  2002.  
       ǰȱȱ¢ǰȱȃ ȱǱȱȱ ȄǰȱThe  Simpsons  
         Archive   (1998),   http://www.snpp.com/other/papers/eac.paper.html,  
         online  (last  accessed  03/08/2012).  
       ǰȱ ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ ǵȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ u-­‐‑
         ȱ ȱ Ȅǰȱ Laughing   Matters:   humor   and   American  
         politics   in   the   media   age,   Eds.   Jody   Baumgartner   Ȯ   Jonathan   S.  
         Morris,  New  York,  Routledge,  2008:  39-­‐‑63.  
       Corcoran,  Neil,  Shakespeare  and  the  Modern  Poet,  Cambridge,  Cam-­‐‑
         bridge  University  Press,  2010.  
       ǰȱ ǰȱȃ¢ȱȱ ȄǰȱThe  Simpsons  Archive,  The  Bos-­‐‑
         ton   Globe   (2000),   http://www.snpp.com/other/articles/playon.html,  
         online  (last  accessed  03/08/2012).  




16  
                                      Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



ǰȱ ǰȱ ȃȱ Ȃȱ Ȅǰȱ Exemplaria:   A  
   Journal   of   Theory   in   Medieval   and   Renaissance   Studies,   10   (1998):  
   405-­‐‑23.  
 ȱ ¢ȱ ǯǰȱ ȃ ȱ Ȅǰȱ The   Cambridge  
   Companion   to   Shakespeare   on   Stage,   Eds.   Stanley   Wells   -­‐‑   Sarah  
   Stanton,   Cambridge,   Cambridge   University   Press,   2002:   174-­‐‑
   193.  
De   Berg,   Henk,   Ȃȱ ¢ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ and   Cultural  
   Studies  Rochester,  New  York,  Camden  House,  2003.  
Delaney,  Tim,  Simpsonology,  New  York,  Prometheus  Books,  2008.  
Dobson,   Michael,   The   Making   of   the   National   Poet:   Shakespeare,   Ad-­‐‑
   aptation   and   Authorship   1660-­‐‑1769,   Oxford,   Oxford   University  
   Press,  1992.  
¤£ǰȱ à·ȱàȱÇ£ǰȱȃȱ ȱȱǱȱȱȱ
   ¢ȄǰȱShakespeare  on  Screen.  Richard  III,  Eds.  Sarah  Hat-­‐‑
   chuel   Ȯ   Nathalie   Vienne   Guerrin,   Rouen,   Publications   de  
   Ȃ·ȱȱǰȱŘŖŖřǱȱŘŞŗ-­‐‑322.  
Genette,  Gérard,  Palimpsests,  Seuil,  Paris,  1982.    
Gray,  Jonathan,  Watching  with  The  Simpsons.  Television,  parody  and  
   intertextuality,  New  York,  Routledge,  2006.  
Hawkes,   Terence,   Meaning   by   Shakespeare,   London-­‐‑New   York,  
   Routledge,  1992.  
  ¢ǰȱ  ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ure,   Situation  
   ¢ǰȱȱȱȱȄǰ  Studies  in  Popular  
   Culture,  1  (1994):  85-­‐‑99.  
Heinemann,   Margot,   ȃHow   Brecht   read   ShakespeareȄ,   Political  
   Shakespeare,   Eds.   Jonathan   Dollimore   -­‐‑   Alan   Sinfield,   Manches-­‐‑
   ter,  Manchester  University  Press,  19963:  226-­‐‑254.  
Hutcheon,  Linda,  A  Theory  of  Adaptation,  London,  Routledge,  2006.  
Iyengar,   Shanto   -­‐‑   Donald   R.   Kinder,   News   That   Matters:   television  
   and  American  opinion,  Chicago,  Chicago  University  Press,  1987.  
Kerrigan,  John,  Revenge  Tragedy,  Oxford,  Clarendon  Press,  1996.  
Keslowitz,   Steven,   The   World   According   to   the   Simpsons,   Chicago,  
   Source  Books,  2006.  



                                                                                         17  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



       Kidnie,   Margareth   J.,   Shakespeare   and   the   Problem   of   Adaptation,  
          New  York,  Routkedge,  2009.  
         ǰȱ ¡ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ Ȅ,   Creative   Screen-­‐‑
          writing,  6  (1999):  66-­‐‑68.  
         ǰȱ ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ ¢ȱ Ȅǰȱ The   Simpsons  
          Archive   (1997),   http://www.snpp.com/other/papers/dk.paper.html,  
          online  (last  accessed  03/08/2012).  
       Kott,  Jan,  Shakespeare  Our  Contemporary,  London,  Routledge,  1991  
          [1964].  
       ǰȱ ǰȱ ȃ ȱ ȱ Ǳȱ Ȃȱ ȱ and   the  
          ¡ȱ Ȅǰȱ Shakespeare,   Theory   and   Performance,   Ed.  
          James  C.  Bulman,  London,  Routledge,  1996:  187-­‐‑209.  
       Lanier,   Douǰȱ ȃȜȄǰȱ The   Cambridge   Companion   to  
          Shakespeare  and  Popular  Culture,  Ed.   Robert  Shaughnessy,  Cam-­‐‑
          bridge,  Cambridge  University  Press,  2007:  93-­‐‑113.  
       Lanier,   Douglas,   Shakespeare   in   Modern   Popular   Culture,   Oxford,  
          Oxford  University  Press,  2002.  
       Maǰȱ ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ Ȅǰȱ World-­‐‑wide   Shake-­‐‑
          speares,  Ed.  Sonia  Massai,  London,  Routledge,  2005:  3-­‐‑11.  
       Moy,   Patricia   -­‐‑   Michael  A.   Xenos   Ȯ   ȱ ǯȱ ǰȱ ȃȱf-­‐‑
          ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ¢Ȅǰȱ International   Journal   of   Public   Opin-­‐‑
          ion  Research,  18  (2005):  198-­‐‑210.  
       Ortved,   John,   The   Simpsons:   an   uncensored,   unauthorized   history,  
          New  York,  Faber  and  Faber,  2009.  
       Pugliatti,   Paola,   Shakespeare   and   the   Just   War   Tradition,   Farnham,  
          Ashgate,  2010.  
       Purcell,  Stephan,  Popular  Shakespeare.  Simulation   and  Subversion  on  
          the  Modern  Stage,  London,  Palgrave  Macmillan,  2009.  
       ȱ ȱǯǰȱȃ¢ȱȁȂȱ ȱȱȱȱ Ham-­‐‑
          letȄǰ  Shakespeare  Studies,  23  (1995):  71-­‐‑99.  
       Turner,  Chris,  Planet  Simpson.  How  a  Cartoon  Masterpiece  Defined  a  
          Generation,  New  York,  Paw  Prints,  2010.  




18  
                                           Between,  vol.  II,  n.  4  (Novembre/November  2012)  



      Waltonen,   Karma   Ȯ   Denise   Du   Vernai,   The   Simpsons   in   the   Class-­‐‑
        room.   Embiggening   the   Learning   Experience   with   the   Wisdom   of  
        Springfield,  Jefferson,  McFarland,  2010.  
      ǰȱ ¢ǰȱǻŗşşŖǼǰȱȃ¢ȱȄǰȱNewsweek,  23  (1990):  58-­‐‑62.  
      Weinstein,   ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ ȱ Ǳȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
        Ȅǰȱ Postmodernism   in   Cinema,   Ed.   Cristina   Degli  
        Esposti,  Oxford-­‐‑New  York,  Berghahn  Books,  1998:  61-­‐‑72.  
      White,   Kenneth  Michael   Ȯ   Mirya   ǰȱȃȱ,  Politics,  
        and   America'ʹs   Favorite   Animated   Family:   Partisan   Bias   in   The  
        ǵȄǰȱStudies  in  Popular  Culture,  34  (2011):  87-­‐‑107.  
      ǰȱ ǰȱ ȃȱ ȱ Ǳȱ Ȃȱ  ȱ ȱ
           ȄǰȱForeign  Literature  Studies,  28  (2006):  1-­‐‑14.  



                            Web-­‐‑sites  and  blogs    
ȃȱȱȱȱȱȱȄǰȱTransmedial  Shakespeare.  
    Studying             Shakespeare              beyond        his     text,  
    http://transmedialshakespeare.wordpress.com/2011/03/18/the-­‐‑
    simpsons-­‐‑and-­‐‑shakespeare-­‐‑love-­‐‑affair/,  web    
ȃ ǰȱ                 ȱ             -­‐‑¢ȱ       Ȅǰȱ
    http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/blogs/entry/ghostbusters-­‐‑the-­‐‑
    modern-­‐‑day-­‐‑hamlet    
http://simpsons.wikia.com  
http://www.nohomers.ney  
http://www.simpworks.com  



                                      Ȃrice  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi  
         
       Maria  Elisa  Montironi  è  cultore  della  materia  in  Storia  del  teatro  
inglese  e  doȱȱȱȱȱȱȱȂ¥ȱȱ
ȱ ȱ ȱ ȃȱ Ȅǰ   dove   ha   svolto   il   Dottorato   di   ricerca   in  


                                                                                              19  
Maria  Elisa  Montironi,  The  SimpsonsȂȱǱȱHamlet  Today.  A  Parodic  Appropriation  



Studi   interculturali   europei   (2008-­‐‑2011).   La   sua   tesi   di   dottorato   verte  
sulla   ricezione   politica   del   Coriolanus   di   Shakespeare   nella   cultura  
tedesca.  Si  è  occupata  della  ricezione  letteraria  e  dei  modelli  teorici  ad  
ȱ ǰȱ ȱ ȃȄȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ ȱ
con  i  classici  (ha  lavorato  sulle  relazioni  intertestuali  tra  Brecht  e  John  
Gay,  Brecht  e  Dante,  Brecht  e  Shakespeare).  
  
        Email:  maria.montironi@uniurb.it  



                                         Ȃ  
Data  invio:  01/09/2012  
Data  accettazione:  30/10/2012  
Data  pubblicazione:  30/11/2012  



                         Come  citare  questo  articolo  
Montironi,   Maria   Elisaǰȱ ȃThe   SimpsonsȂ   Shakespeare:   Hamlet   Today.  
Possible   Meanings   and   Consequences   of   a   Parodic   AppropriationȄǰȱ
Between,  II.4  (2012),  http://www.Between-­‐‑journal.it/  
  




20  
