**Warning: Full of Spoilers**
There are a few funny lines in this movie. A few guffaws. But watching outside of the assumptions many Americans take as gospel, turned a good idea (a comedy involving puppets) into a political rant lacking in both satire and innovative humour.
As a fan of South Park, and a fan of South Park the Movie, I was expecting something much more intelligent and coherent. Instead, this movie delivers a surprisingly conservative rendition of world events, devoid of satirical weight.
Here's how the satire works: Team America are good guys with excessive force. The Film Actor's Guild (a crudely homophobic acronym) are corruptible Americans. The terrorists (a crude mixture of Russians, Arabs, and North Koreans) are unquestionably bad. The satire emerges in the excessive force used by Team America (as we've all heard), but this side of things dies down very quickly, after the first few scenes. The real thrust of the satire is against left-wing actors who speak out against American violence. In contrast to the violence itself, the film depicts their weakness as both unpardonable and ultimately treasonous. In contrast, the threat by the terrorists is given as real in the movie, and Team America presented as justified, warts and all.
Parker may be exaggerating his vitriol against the left-wing actor sector (think Rock the Vote style celebs), but the movie offers very little in the way of real satire. There are satirical moments, but the values of the film remain consistent with the images and narrative shown (satire depends on the opposite). The movie does ridicule left-wing actors, but it doesn't hide its ridicule -- the ridicule is the very point of the film. At the same time, the criticism against George Bush style violence is excused by the fact that the terrorists are accepted and given as real threats to America. People may accept this as gospel in the US, but outside it appears delusional and paranoiac.
I was trying to think up a way this movie could have presented a genuine satire, and the best is to turn to the classics: Don Quixote, in particular. In Cervantes' masterpiece, the over-eager Quixote embraces the Romantic ideals of the day and sets about defending them. The problem is that, much like Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the boogey-men and monsters he confronts are all false illusions. Nobody is trying to overthrow Romantic values because Romantic values don't exist in the world. In a similar way, to return to the context of the movie, nobody is really trying to overthrow American values because American values don't exist in any tangible, fixed way. To paraphrase Mackenzie King, the truth is that Americans have always accepted 'Freedom if necessary, but not necessarily freedom.' Parker includes many satirical gestures in this direction -- mocking the empty rhetoric of politicos. How many times can one person say "Freedom!" before asking what that really means, how is it defined, comprised, and safe-guarded in a nebulous world-in-flux? The film makes a few of this type of criticism but ultimately pardons them as the ugly surface muddying (by over-simplifying) the real issue of concern: the defense of America. But when these vacuous terms are used to justify terribly questionable actions, the implications of so lightly critiquing their use amounts to a tacit approval of the actions if not the language used.
To summarize: liberals appear naive and corruptible (they end up working for the terrorists), terrorists appear violent and evil, and conservatives appear awkward, over-aggressive but justified. The message and the image are the same in the film: it is not satire. Worse, still, it appears perfectly on message with White House personnel.
What happened to South Park? All I saw was a barely veiled critique of those who DARE criticize America. You'd think they were exercising their freedom or something. The nerve....
37 out of 89 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends