The Simpsons production team tries the holiday genre parody that worked so well with their Treehouse of Horror every Halloween. This time it's of the corny but wildly popular and predictable Hallmark/Lifetime/Netflix channel Christmas rom-com movie. Really accurate with the jokes. Ellie Kemper stars as Mary, the big city career woman who visits folksy small town Springfield.
The Simpsons (TV Series)
A Springfield Summer Christmas for Christmas (2020)
User Reviews
Review this title15 Reviews
Could have been a Hallmark contender
safenoe27 March 2023
Warning: Spoilers
This 2020 Simpsons episode (wasn't that a memorable year I guess) attempted to parody the Hallmark Christmas movies. If this episode was produced during the golden era (being the first 10 seasons) then there would have been some real bite, an edge to this episode with it's bulls-eye targets. But not to be. In fact, I thought the Hallmark producer in this episode was voiced by Indian-American actress Tiya Sircar, not Ellie Kemper.
I loved the reference to air bed and breakfast.
Carl is being voiced by Alex Desert, not Hank Azaria. As a long-time fan of The Simpsons, I was astonished because with due respect to Alex, his rendition of Carl seemed like a bad imitation of Hank Azaria's version.
No Good Read Goes Unpunished, the famous Simpsons episode that was a harsh rejoinder to "politically correct" Indian-American Hari Kondabolu's The Problem with Apu, is an episode that came to mind immediately when I saw A Springfield Summer Christmas for Christmas. Because why on earth did The Simpsons producers cast replace the extraordinarily talented Hank Azaria as Carl's voice with that of Alex Desert (with due respect to Alex of course). Why can't the producers get an Indian-American like Bobby Jindal to voice Apu?
I loved the reference to air bed and breakfast.
Carl is being voiced by Alex Desert, not Hank Azaria. As a long-time fan of The Simpsons, I was astonished because with due respect to Alex, his rendition of Carl seemed like a bad imitation of Hank Azaria's version.
No Good Read Goes Unpunished, the famous Simpsons episode that was a harsh rejoinder to "politically correct" Indian-American Hari Kondabolu's The Problem with Apu, is an episode that came to mind immediately when I saw A Springfield Summer Christmas for Christmas. Because why on earth did The Simpsons producers cast replace the extraordinarily talented Hank Azaria as Carl's voice with that of Alex Desert (with due respect to Alex of course). Why can't the producers get an Indian-American like Bobby Jindal to voice Apu?
Very Cheesy
e_daneva23 December 2023
A Springfield Summer Christmas for Christmas is an okay episode. I have watched 16 other Simpsons Christmas specials. There was 2 bad, 3 okay, 3 good, and 9 pretty good episodes. This episode goes in the okay category. This episode just feels soo cheesy. It completely feels like a kids episodes, not a Simpsons episode. Despicable Me 3 was more inappropriate than this episode, I'm serious. Probably one of the reasons I don't like this as much as other is probably because I have never watched a Hallmark movie. But still, this episode just felt very cheesy. For me it just isn't really the best it could be. In all, I give this a 6.0 out of 10.
Surprisingly funny
hebg20 December 2020
I usually can't stand new Simpsons, but this epsiode was great. It's entirely a parody of Hallmark movies so if you've never watched one you might not enjoy the episode. I thought this was one of the best new Simpsons in a while!
What was that????
Dave_0514 December 2020
This movie might be good enough to fold laundry to
newtype_16 December 2021
I thought this was a great episode, a rather sharp parody of those hundreds of inane Christmas movies. You have to have seen a lot of them to appreciate it though, my mom watches them constantly during the month of December. I didn't mind the story not revolving exclusively around the family as others have said, they're in it enough.
Yikes
brent2-186-93626921 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
Quite possibly the worst Simpson's episode I have watched. The main character was annoying and it was not Christmas-y at all. The Simpson's are trying too hard to keep up with the times. What a shame.
The only endearing part of the show was Skinners potential relationship with the main character. However, that idea was shot down at the end.
The only endearing part of the show was Skinners potential relationship with the main character. However, that idea was shot down at the end.
Truly Terrible
grahammasters24 April 2021
I think they got there on the on all the terrible Christmas movie moments. I know it won't be to everyone's tastes but for me it was so bad it was good :)
If you don't like it try watching a half dozen Christmas movies then re-watch.
If you don't like it try watching a half dozen Christmas movies then re-watch.
Knew it'd be polarising long before reading the reviews
watchinglotsofstuff6 April 2021
A conceptually interesting episode that, by its very nature, was always going to polarise viewers. "A Springfield Summer" is a Simpsons metanarrative: the kind of experimental idea that has been tried with increasing regularity as the series has grown older, but has rarely worked. The classic era writers seldom tried this stuff and when they did, they made damn sure it was going to work -- right up until, arguably, "Principal and the Pauper".
The main problem with "A Springfield Summer" is not the idea but the execution. I agree with other reviewers that the guest star, and primary protagonist, is unremarkable at best, annoying at worst. While the writers try to poke fun at their personification of urbanite elitism, you feel like their hearts aren't really in it -- and it's not overly surprising given that the lead is an avatar of them to an extent. When they do offer what seems to be an olive branch (or fig leaf?) over the trite conceit of a big city vs little town culture clash, by finding in favour of the latter, it feels like a patronising contrivance (yes, the contrivance is dressed up as satire but I don't wholly buy it). (As a Briton, I'm somewhat qualified to give a neutral take on that cultural element.)
I don't think I laughed at all during "A Springfield Summer". But I also didn't cringe at the deadpan repetition of liberal talking points from a decade ago -- because there wasn't much (any?) of that here. In that sense, the episode made a pleasant watch. I was one of the loyalists who didn't strike The Simpsons off my essential calendar until it became a combination of intolerably bad and relentlessly political circa season 30, so I'm still happy to give episodes a fair try, and my standards for a good one have been suitably tempered by years of mediocrity. Having reached the end of "A Springfield Summer" without feeling dejected or irritated, I'm obliged to give it an above average score (which may say more about the show's decline than the episode itself).
So the thing about the political criticisms of Simpsons is that it's true that the show has always been political. But to deploy that as a catch-all counterargument is disingenuous. For one thing, the messaging has never been as ubiquitous or unbalanced as it has been over the past few years. Where earlier seasons made a token attempt at bipartisanship in their parody, season 32 told you who to vote for with a level of contempt for dissent that had me visibly cringing. As numerous liberal, Democrat-voting Simpsons fans pointed out at the time of this year's "Treehouse", the show was essentially telling you to quit watching it if you don't agree with its electoral suggestions. Sage advice. (Some of the aforementioned Democrats, by the way, were being disparaging of the show's attitude.)
The other aspect is that Simpsons has always occupied this sort of space of "as liberal as we can go while maintaining a TV viewership on a commercial network". Since (Anglosphere) society in general has been trending more liberal and at an increasing rate of increase throughout The Simpsons' entire run, the show has moved its own position very significantly by simply tracking trends. Additionally, the writers have pushed this process further themselves at times and have never made any substantive attempt to resist it -- but then, why should they? They like the zeitgeist and its heading. A lot of people don't, however. In fact, I'd suggest that a supermajority don't.
As an aside, if you've ever wondered how society seems to keep changing in opposition to the will of the majority - almost as if democracy is a sham - read some of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, like Gramsci, Derrida and Marcuse. Their philosophies were driven by an ideological desire to end Western civilisation, by - and this is the critical part - subverting the will of the people to create the kind of atomised, diverse, globalised and nihilistic societies we have now. Most of those guys were very upfront about their goals in their own writings: Gramsci described the process by which it's still happening as the "long march through the institutions", and, hell, Derrida was more or less motivated entirely by being bullied at a French school. Their work has infinitely more explanatory power in terms of why entertainment sucks now than anything with the word "woke" in it. Have you noticed that losing money on projects doesn't seem to bother the producers? Could it be that ideology is actually more important than profit? "Get woke, go broke" is a fantasy.
Many people feel that as society is leaving them behind, so is The Simpsons with "jokes" about "mansplaining" and entire episodes about, for example, how historical literature fails to live up to the liberal standards of contemporary literature. I don't see a way Simpsons could ever really recover and retain the kind of mass following it had in the past without becoming iconoclastic and swimming back against the tide (in the way that it arguably used to, to some extent, yet in reverse). But nobody on the staff team wants to do that. Fair enough: their show and, potentially, their bed.
Be prepared, however, because The Simpsons has become the cartoon canary in the coalmine: if you want a look at where its edgier competitors are going to be in ten years, look no further. Such is the nature of political forces beyond the understanding of you or I: forces that are in no way subject to our whims and are actively hostile to our best interests.
Anyway, I wanted to discuss "A Springfield Summer" but because I haven't reviewed a Simpsons episode in so many years, I had to cover all of the background detritus that burdens any serious discussion of the show today. A solid episode by the standards of the day but almost solely by virtue of its inoffensiveness. To call the episode remarkably polite is accurate and yet profoundly mocking of a show that was once considered a genuine work of counterculture. To look at it now, that'd seem an incredible claim -- and it is as much a reflection of the trajectory of The Simpsons as the trajectory of our civilisation.
The main problem with "A Springfield Summer" is not the idea but the execution. I agree with other reviewers that the guest star, and primary protagonist, is unremarkable at best, annoying at worst. While the writers try to poke fun at their personification of urbanite elitism, you feel like their hearts aren't really in it -- and it's not overly surprising given that the lead is an avatar of them to an extent. When they do offer what seems to be an olive branch (or fig leaf?) over the trite conceit of a big city vs little town culture clash, by finding in favour of the latter, it feels like a patronising contrivance (yes, the contrivance is dressed up as satire but I don't wholly buy it). (As a Briton, I'm somewhat qualified to give a neutral take on that cultural element.)
I don't think I laughed at all during "A Springfield Summer". But I also didn't cringe at the deadpan repetition of liberal talking points from a decade ago -- because there wasn't much (any?) of that here. In that sense, the episode made a pleasant watch. I was one of the loyalists who didn't strike The Simpsons off my essential calendar until it became a combination of intolerably bad and relentlessly political circa season 30, so I'm still happy to give episodes a fair try, and my standards for a good one have been suitably tempered by years of mediocrity. Having reached the end of "A Springfield Summer" without feeling dejected or irritated, I'm obliged to give it an above average score (which may say more about the show's decline than the episode itself).
So the thing about the political criticisms of Simpsons is that it's true that the show has always been political. But to deploy that as a catch-all counterargument is disingenuous. For one thing, the messaging has never been as ubiquitous or unbalanced as it has been over the past few years. Where earlier seasons made a token attempt at bipartisanship in their parody, season 32 told you who to vote for with a level of contempt for dissent that had me visibly cringing. As numerous liberal, Democrat-voting Simpsons fans pointed out at the time of this year's "Treehouse", the show was essentially telling you to quit watching it if you don't agree with its electoral suggestions. Sage advice. (Some of the aforementioned Democrats, by the way, were being disparaging of the show's attitude.)
The other aspect is that Simpsons has always occupied this sort of space of "as liberal as we can go while maintaining a TV viewership on a commercial network". Since (Anglosphere) society in general has been trending more liberal and at an increasing rate of increase throughout The Simpsons' entire run, the show has moved its own position very significantly by simply tracking trends. Additionally, the writers have pushed this process further themselves at times and have never made any substantive attempt to resist it -- but then, why should they? They like the zeitgeist and its heading. A lot of people don't, however. In fact, I'd suggest that a supermajority don't.
As an aside, if you've ever wondered how society seems to keep changing in opposition to the will of the majority - almost as if democracy is a sham - read some of the most influential thinkers of the 20th century, like Gramsci, Derrida and Marcuse. Their philosophies were driven by an ideological desire to end Western civilisation, by - and this is the critical part - subverting the will of the people to create the kind of atomised, diverse, globalised and nihilistic societies we have now. Most of those guys were very upfront about their goals in their own writings: Gramsci described the process by which it's still happening as the "long march through the institutions", and, hell, Derrida was more or less motivated entirely by being bullied at a French school. Their work has infinitely more explanatory power in terms of why entertainment sucks now than anything with the word "woke" in it. Have you noticed that losing money on projects doesn't seem to bother the producers? Could it be that ideology is actually more important than profit? "Get woke, go broke" is a fantasy.
Many people feel that as society is leaving them behind, so is The Simpsons with "jokes" about "mansplaining" and entire episodes about, for example, how historical literature fails to live up to the liberal standards of contemporary literature. I don't see a way Simpsons could ever really recover and retain the kind of mass following it had in the past without becoming iconoclastic and swimming back against the tide (in the way that it arguably used to, to some extent, yet in reverse). But nobody on the staff team wants to do that. Fair enough: their show and, potentially, their bed.
Be prepared, however, because The Simpsons has become the cartoon canary in the coalmine: if you want a look at where its edgier competitors are going to be in ten years, look no further. Such is the nature of political forces beyond the understanding of you or I: forces that are in no way subject to our whims and are actively hostile to our best interests.
Anyway, I wanted to discuss "A Springfield Summer" but because I haven't reviewed a Simpsons episode in so many years, I had to cover all of the background detritus that burdens any serious discussion of the show today. A solid episode by the standards of the day but almost solely by virtue of its inoffensiveness. To call the episode remarkably polite is accurate and yet profoundly mocking of a show that was once considered a genuine work of counterculture. To look at it now, that'd seem an incredible claim -- and it is as much a reflection of the trajectory of The Simpsons as the trajectory of our civilisation.
I can't
miab-7298114 December 2020
Like what was this episode? It doesn't even talk about ANY Christmas things, all it was about was a person that wasn't even in the Simpsons before. It's worse than Bart vs Itchy and Scratchy, This episode is boring and unfunny.
Disappointing
manirlielsdaikts30 December 2020
Warning: Spoilers
I am a huge fan of Christmas specials from The Simpsons. They are almost always great ways of getting in to the Christmas spirit. But not only did this episode not accomplish that, it was also disappointing in pretty much all other aspects.
One thing I have to give to this episode is that the exposition was solid. The characters were depicted like perfect stereotypes of their roles and felt lively.
The main problem I had with this episode was the ending. The main part was ok, but it wasn't very interesting and didn't feel characteristic of The Simpsons. The ending though was horrible. Not only did the help from the townspeople feel forced on by the creators in order to get the point of "look how good small towns are" across, Skinner's actions were extremely disappointing. I was hoping that they would stay together for at least a few episodes(or until she met his mother), but all we got was Skinner giving up and acting miserably.
I really wished to get something more out of this episode, but it failed to deliver on the most important aspects of a Christmas special. I am giving it three stars because we got to see the good side of Principal Skinner and the story was kind of interesting, but if the show keeps going in this direction, I'm afraid that it won't last for another 2 seasons.
One thing I have to give to this episode is that the exposition was solid. The characters were depicted like perfect stereotypes of their roles and felt lively.
The main problem I had with this episode was the ending. The main part was ok, but it wasn't very interesting and didn't feel characteristic of The Simpsons. The ending though was horrible. Not only did the help from the townspeople feel forced on by the creators in order to get the point of "look how good small towns are" across, Skinner's actions were extremely disappointing. I was hoping that they would stay together for at least a few episodes(or until she met his mother), but all we got was Skinner giving up and acting miserably.
I really wished to get something more out of this episode, but it failed to deliver on the most important aspects of a Christmas special. I am giving it three stars because we got to see the good side of Principal Skinner and the story was kind of interesting, but if the show keeps going in this direction, I'm afraid that it won't last for another 2 seasons.
who is destroying this franchise ?
FlowXP26 December 2020
PLEASE please stop
williamkelly-1281016 December 2020
Terrible Episode
wrenleung8 February 2021
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
