The speed with which Matt and Trey are getting out their current event episodes is becoming near instantaneous -in TV terms anyway. "About last night" creaked a bit, in the parody of "Ocean's Eleven", but the timing that they got it out in conjunction with the unravelling election news was phenomenal.
And they even managed a loose tap on the back for Obama (right at the end) which proves what I'd always thought. They actually care about politics, and that the "Douche and the Turd" episode in 2004 was entirely correct. There was nothing to choose between the two candidates then; and that "maybe, just maybe", there is now.
16 comments:
They always do these "to the wire" shows really well. Sometimes they do it real quick or like the Hurrican Katrina one, they wait a while. I'm not sure they really "gave Obama a loose pat on the back" but I know what you mean. There's a good interview with the guys on the Charlie Rose show when they talk about their politics, a bit anyway, and they make a good point about their Republican leanings, essentially saying they're libertarian and discussing how they were liberal and anti-reagan when they lived in Colorado, but when they got to Hollywood found the whole liberal atmosphere nauseating and so took a different stance just to stir the shit. Link is here
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VqtLudQtIGs
I've seen that interview before, great stuff. I think the point is that Matt and Trey always disguise their real views really well on their shows but sometimes you can detect their real feelings in this case, the Obama ep, I think they're saying "hmmm...let's give this guy a chance"
There are times when it is really obvious what their take on a matter is, for example in Christian Rock Hard. There's no subtlety in their position in that show. They think that millionaire musicians complaining about downloading music for free is despicable - and they're right. But sometimes they destroy something, like in the Mormons show, then right at the end flip it. In other words they ridicule Mormons then, at the end, the Mormon kid Stan had a go at insults him and shows him up for being mean - while all he was doing was being nice.
The label South Park Conservatives/Republican thing really gets to them http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_Republican
If anything they're warm-hearted anarchists.
One of the guys who coined the conservatives term, Andrew Sullivan, has had a massive back-track on his initial views on Iraq and recently came out for Obama.
I love that bit in the Charlie Rose interview when he cites Trey saying: "I'm sick of actors on TV parroting what they read in the paper...I keep expecting Larry King to say on CNN "and now for his word on Iraq - the Cookie Monster".
Anon's "warm-hearted anarchists" is a neat description but it doesn't underline the fact that they do have opinions on everything, it's just that they don't stick them in your face, in the show anyway.
What they like doing is fucking with what is expected of them. The "biggest" example is in the movie. In the first half they completely rip on American foreign policy, which must have had the liberals cheering and then they turn it into a complete rip on liberals - at least Hollywood actor liberals anyway.
The Charlie Rose interview is probably the clearest indication of where their heads are that I've ever seen. Even if Charlie doesn't totally understand them at times and pronounces John Cleese as John Cheese.
All the republican/conservative tags on Trey and Matt belies the fact that what they're really about is transgression. I know where Anon is coming from with "warm-hearted anarchists" but the problem with that term is that it is misleading. In the shows the storylines are really tightly structured as opposed to Python which went everywhere. Regarding Mr Kitty's comment on John Cleese.
I wonder if they were more influenced by Fawlty Towers than Python particularly with regard to Cartman as Basil Fawlty. He constantly corners himself into problems by his Machiavellian manoeuvres.
RE: transgression and fingerbang's last comment, the book "Blame Canada" has a lot of good stuff regarding Rabelais and the inversion of "roles" in a society. It's the only book I've read on SP that makes any sense. The others seem to claim some sort of theoretical ground to enforce their own beliefs. "South Park Conservatives" is a good example.
Anyway to get/keep the ball rolling (to coin and misappropriate a number of phrases) I'll be posting an essay on the relationship between Eric and Butters in the next few days. Mainly to do with sex - so watch this space!
"South Park Conservatives" misses the point completely. This quote from the book sums it up. "In virtually every respect the political and moral views that dominate the media elite have been and remain out of sync with those of the American people". He then shows (correctly) that basically the press are largely liberal but that doesn't reflect the thinking of the general public.
Of course it doesn't! That's the point! If the press reflected the opinion of the American people then they'd be advocating public executions and saying Saddam Hussain was responsible for 9/11!
In "The Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" there's this exchange which sums it up.
Cartman: Oh really? Well did you know that over one-fourth of people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that one-fourth of Americans are retards?
Kyle: Yes. I'm saying one-fourth of Americans are retards.
Stan: Yeah, at least one-fourth.
Go Fingerbang!
"Blame Canada" is an awesome piece of work but it has a multitude of flaws that I won't go into now. But it still should be the bible for SP theorists. The book "South Park Cons" is, as you described, junk personified. I could only get to page three before I was hit by a screeching, anti-left, truck of a diatribe.
I'm only half-way through "Blame Canada" and it seems incredibly insightful. I'd be interested in what you consider its "flaws" Miss Kitty.
I'm gonna do a review of the book soon. "Flaws" is a bit strong as it's an awesome work. But I would of used the work of Deleuze and Guattari (Anti- Oedipus, etc) to frame SP not Bakhtin's reading of Rabelais. I will do a post about SP books soon, just got to get the Butters and Eric one out soon.
Not sure what the hell Mr Kitty is on about but I would recommend "Blame Canada" as the starting point for all who want to think about SP in a serious way.
On a slight off-topic - how good was "Elementary School Musical"? Season 12 has just been a total joy.
Sorry, I did a degree in continental philosophy, but I could make sense of what I said but it would be too boring.
Re series 12, they just go from strength to strength - there are some unintentionally hilarious comments about season 12 on the forums. One claiming that SP had "jumped the shark" in season 12. WTF! Do they even know what jump the shark means! Whenever I watch "The China Probrem" I'm doubled up with laughter and have to lie down for 10 minutes.
What do you expect from the forums.
I saw one complaining that Eric had turned into a Wigger in the Breast Cancer Show Ever. But surely the great thing about the characters is that they are constantly evolving, in a way that the Simpsons characters can't.
Yep. I think fingerbang is gonna post a polemic comparing SP and the Simpsons and how the latter has failed.
Dawg, will do, just let me finish my homework!
Post a Comment