I had the unique experience of watching George Lucas rape Indiana Jones on top of a Howard The Duck pinball machine on "South Park" right before going to bed a couple of nights ago.
Obviously, there was a little metaphor going on in that episode regarding how some people feel that Lucas/Spielberg "raped" the Indy franchise (and, in turn, their childhoods).
But does the episode make light of rape itself? And should cartoons, no matter how irreverent, be able to depict real-life people committing more or less graphic sexual atrocities? Couldn't cartoons do this with political figures...and candidates? Couldn't "Family Guy" have an episode where McCain was molesting children? Or couldn't a conservative cartoon have a field day with Obama? Under the name of "it's satire and only a cartoon anyway?"
I got the joke of that particular scene up to a point -- but there was a certain rawness to it that sort of went beyond satire and was really sort of disturbing and creepy.
Plus: I've just witnessed Indiana Jones get gang-raped. I was sort of hoping to not run into an image like that in my lifetime.
What do you think?
Thank you for this post. This needed to be said.
ReplyDeleteI'm pretty incensed over the whole trivialization of the word rape.
Everything that someone doesn't like is "rape" now? It's disgusting.
People are allowed their opinions, sure, but there's a million different -- and far better -- ways to say you hate something.
And as someone who loves South Park to pieces, I will most likely never watch this one again.
It was oddly uncomfortable at moments, but they seemed to be satirizing the presentation of rape in pop culture rather than using it as a plot device. Besides parodying scenes of The Accused and Deliverance, every moment of rape talk outside of those flashbacks was pure Lifetime melodrama schtick. So I was a lot more comfortable with this than some Family Guy jokes where sexual assault is just used as a throwaway punchline.
ReplyDeleteAnd it was worth it for Butters' reaction coming out of the theatre.
It's my opinion that Butters' reaction is probably closer to the opinions of Trey and Matt then the rest of the kids. In fact, I think South Park may be satirizing the trivialization of the word rape.
ReplyDeleteAlso, not the greatest episode.
South Park makes shocking jokes, right? Right, so okay. You know what though? A bad movie isn't RAPE. Heads up on that nerds. The Unholy Trilogy of Star Wars didn't RAPE anybody's childhood.
ReplyDeleteI agree about the satire of trivialization of it, though it was still uncomfortable to watch (Thank goodness for TiVo - fastforwarding yay!). And I certainly hope that Butters' opinion mirrors those of Trey and Matt, since I actually liked it, too.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, I'm kind of the opinion that that particular show jumped the shark right around the same time of the falling out with Isaac Hayes.
ReplyDeleteStone and Parker have been trying to push boundaries for some time and lately have moved a few miles past the line between satire and bad taste. They aren't the only ones, though. It seems to be part of a trend to push to the point of pain. Family Guy's also done it on a regular basis.
The difference, though, is that South Park is evangelizing instead of commenting. It's like having a conversation with someone who only argues using hyperbolic examples ("you're hurting children"). Sad part is that these kind of excessively earnest messages are sort of what South Park used to satirize...and do it well.
Awwww hamburgers!
ReplyDelete"Ditto" to everything Keith said above.
ReplyDeleteBeyond the offensiveness (whether it's the Britney Spears suicide, or the vomiting in Team America), it's just intellectually lazy humor. It comes across as if they're TRYING to be oh-so-subversive, like a small-town, open mic stand-up comic attempting to out-do Andy Kaufman, 'cause they think it makes them edgy.
I've seen maybe 3 episodes of SP in my life, but what's amazing to me is how incredibly funny it can be, right up to the point where they pull this shit.
It just seems "beneath" the guys who write so much other genuinely funny stuff.
Cartoons do depict political figures committing aggressive sexual acts. Guillermo Torres and writer-editor Manel Fontdevila got in all kinds of trouble for doing exactly that on the cover of el jueves.
ReplyDeleteAnd it was complete bullshit that they got in any at all.
Legislation based on the vagaries of personal definitions of what someone finds offensive shouldn't get to determine anything regarding what makes up their work. If a company wants to avoid the public/financial risks inherent in controversy, that's one thing. But bending to the will of those that have independently taken it on themselves to determine what's offensive is completely insane. That guy Keith put it best, "I will most likely never watch this one again." I don't care that much about South Park, excepting the times they go after Scientology, but I didn't really give a shit about 2 Live Crew either. They still get to ride in the same boat as the rests of the artists though. Talent, intelligence, taste and humor don't mean shit when you're dealing with censorship.
South Park is basically a mirror designed in a way to reflect your own distortions back at you in such a way that it causes outrage to a degree that is directly proportional to the amount of cognitive dissonance required to maintain your current belief system.
ReplyDeleteI miss when satire was an actual literary device, and not just an excuse.
ReplyDeleteMarge Simpson: "You know, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually, I didn't even notice"
ReplyDeleteShock needs more shock.
I normally find south park hilarious and intelligent, but uh this time not so much. I'm not for censorship, but this seems in poor taste. Also yeah if someone made a cartoon about ME raping somebody, even a fictional somebody I would be Pissed and WEIRDED OUT!
ReplyDeleteAlso just started reading your blog this week, and i love it! Keep um how did you put it? Ah yes keep "putting your arm on the table and cutting it off!" and i mean that in a very positive way!
On a show that satirizes murder, making light of rape seems almost an improvement, reprehensible as it remains. I don't see objections about rape's depiction on South Park as reasonable when murder - a far more final and disturbing crime - is portrayed the same way. Rape is terrible, but it has survivors.
ReplyDelete"Besides parodying scenes of The Accused and Deliverance"
ReplyDeleteI was surprised by how many people didn't get these references. Say what you want about Parker and Stone, but they do promote pop culture literacy.
I personally find the use of rape as a punchline in any case distasteful. And I agree it is trivialized when it is used this way. But i would also like to say something about the subject of Lucas and Spielberg. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg don't owe anyone anything. Indiana Jones and Star Wars are not just movies, they are a business and their creators have every right to run them like a business. Transformers is a show near and dear to my heart from when I was growing up and there were scenes in the live action movie that bugged me but I understand that movie was not made to please me, it was made to make money. We still have our memories of these things but eventaully we have to grow up and learn that it is immature and disgusting to use rape as a metaphor for our own selfish anger.
ReplyDeleteSouth Park not just "crossing the line" but obliterating it in the process!?!
ReplyDeleteI'm not even midly surprised and "unimpressed" by most of the series...
ArrrOOOooo!
You know, it's funny you mentioning this, because I took the rape shtick meaning almost precisely the opposite. Like the creators kept hearing people say, "Oh my God, they totally raped Indiana Jones! They raped my childhood!" and then they decided, "Okay, you know what that word really means? Let's show you what that word really means."
ReplyDeleteIt's like they were satirizing the people who throw out the word "rape" whenever they say they don't like like something. And hey, most of us are that person now and again. It's good to be a little more self-aware of our language.
*But does the episode make light of rape itself?
ReplyDeleteI haven't seen the episode, but judging from your reaction I think they did the opposite, since they made it harrowing enough.
* And should cartoons, no matter how irreverent, be able to depict real-life people committing more or less graphic sexual atrocities?
Able? Of course! Freedom of speech and all that, you put the little rating thing in the corner for a reason.
* Couldn't cartoons do this with political figures...and candidates? Couldn't "Family Guy" have an episode where McCain was molesting children? Or couldn't a conservative cartoon have a field day with Obama? Under the name of "it's satire and only a cartoon anyway?"
Public figures and all that, this questions are dangerous, they usually lead then to "shouldn't we do something about it?" the answer is turn off the tv! Eff the decency police!
But I think (hope) that your question is more about if it's, ethical? moral? right? probably not, but comedy is not supposed to be any of the above.
Aren't the people trivializing rape those who use it far too freely as a metaphor for creative decisions they don't agree with regarding franchise characters? Or lazy creators whose consideration of the subject goes no further than its usefulness as a plot device?
ReplyDeleteAren't Parker and Stone the ones showing them how trivial it isn't? Isn't the exact point that it should be uncomfortable to watch a scene of sexual assault?
Am I missing something here?
For my own protection, I must say upfront that I have neither seen this episode of South Park nor have I read Nightwing #194. Perhaps I'm being too obtuse, but why can you say that a cartoon depiction of rape is wrong because people are actually raped, but then NOT say that a comic depiction of torture is wrong because people are actually tortured?
ReplyDeleteIt's virtually impossible to make comedy that doesn't offend someone. Even a film like The Big Lebowski (a personal favorite of mine) is widely-regarded as brilliant, but would surely offend many people ('Nam veterans, for example) who probably don't deserve to be offended. I'd argue that it doesn't in and of itself make the art worse.
Part of the tension one faces in calling for art that is "challenging" and "boundary-pushing" is that there's the distinct implication that the other guy needs to be challenged and have his boundaries pushed, not me.
As for the satirical point they're trying to make, I actually thought the most recent Indy film was a worthy addition to the series. It was certainly better than Temple of Doom. It feels weird to talk about something so trivial in a comment that began about dreadful violence.
This comment isn't directed at anyone in particular.
Keep the posts coming, Val. I really do love your blog.
Curiously, I was thinking about rape on my way to work this morning. More generally, I was thinking about various traumatic experiences in life, and how the methods of coping with them define a person. My conclusion was that ultimately, you have to make peace, either through confrontation of the issue or denial. Neither allows for the censorship of art to trauma-proof the world.
ReplyDeleteIf you choose denial, watching "South Park" is already a violation of your path. If you choose acceptance, but would still rather not deal with something like this, there was lots of foreshadowing before "the Accused" and "Deliverance" parodies kicked in to allow you to turn the channel. Finally, if you accept the words and images of cartoon characters as a reliable source of unbiased information, I expect you're among the 20-some percent of Americans who still approve of the Bush Administration and would "rather not say" your problem with Obama. I have confronted and accepted that those types of dick-shooters exist in my world. I would rather not be Chinese, and stand as a citizen of an unethical nation alongside dick-shooters. You think about that.
And another thing: in a world where George Lucas continues to make money for his schattenfreud, the only way to pay him back in kind is through efforts like these. Perhaps public humiliation will make him stop rolling naked in tubs of money and butter and reconsider whether his access to both makes his gluttony righteous.
One more thing: we live in a hyperbolic nation, so all this umbrage at the reinterpretation of "rape" by the internet is dick-shooting.
I guess it all depends on how upset you are over Indiana Jones. Fictional characters mean more to some people than others. As do metaphors.
ReplyDeleteAre they saying that rape is not a terrible thing?
The evangelizing is what sort of drove me away from SP.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying I don't still think they're funny. I do. They're amazingly funny. I'm often amazed and shocked at how dead on their observations can be. But sometimes I feel like they're beating me over the head and screaming "MESSAGE!" when in the past, as greyman24 said, that is the sort of thing they'd normally mock.
I think George Carlin said it best. "If you don't think rape can be funny, imagine Elmer Fudd being raped by Porky Pig. Hey, why do you think they call him Porky?"
ReplyDeleteSouth Park at this point is an American institution, and their function is to take recent events and satorize them in a blunt and graphic manner. Yes, I see the slippery slope, but this is the price we pay for freedom of speech. If you don't like it, don't watch it. I still think rape is horrible and objectionable, but if we don't laugh at it, then we give more power to rapists than they deserve. Also, the terrorists will win.
As horrible as the subject of rape is, no, it shouldn't be off limits in humor. Nothing should be. Laughing at terrible stuff is how we cope with it and take its power away. I doubt anyone watched that episode and thought "hey, maybe rape isn't so bad after all." In fact the horribleness of rape is part of the joke. It's supposed to be over the top awful.
ReplyDelete1.) It seemed fairly obvious to me that, on top of voicing an opinion about the film, the creators were also commenting on the trivialization of rape in popular culture (if they weren't, I doubt that there would have been as many as THREE separate rape scenes - one would have been sufficient).
ReplyDelete2.) I more or less agree with the point that Tucker makes.
3.) I found the plot to be amusing, if only because it mirrors my opinion of the film closely (although I doubt I would refer to that travesty as "rape"...).
It was uncomfortable to watch those scenes even if they were satirical cartoons, but then again I suspect that was part of the point - to try and cause discomfort in the minds of those idiots who don't have a problem using "rape" to describe their reaction to a piece of fiction they don't like.
ReplyDeleteI don't think it's anywhere near the best material they've done, though, particularly not since they had a funnier attack on Spielberg/Lucas in a previous episode...
(I too had hoped not to see an image of Indiana Jones being gangraped, but then again South Park has also showed me Cartman shitting into a bucket held by his mother, Richard Dawkins fucking a sex-changed Mr Garrison, and an entire town's worth of people reversing the direction of their digestive tracts and crapping out of their mouths, so I guess it's probably par for the course...)
Some points:
ReplyDelete1. Up to the point I'm writing this, I have yet to hear anyone, here, saying the show should be censored or fined, so those statements regarding our freedom of speech and "don't watch it" seem out of place. So far as I can tell, people are expressing their displeasure. Personally, I don't watch the show anymore. Used to love it. Hate it now. This doesn't mean I want Parker and Stone thrown in jail.
2. Humorously enough, those points that Kyle mentions ("Richard Dawkins fucking a sex-changed Mr Garrison, and an entire town's worth of people reversing the direction of their digestive tracts and crapping out of their mouths") were some of the scenes that made me not watch the show in the first place. Upon reflection, I think the turning point was when Mr. Garrison did his sex change. That scene showing the sex change surgery was WAY over the top.
3. The statement of Beatitude Sputnik (I'd paraphrase, but my wordy posts are long enough) strikes me as particularly elitist and aloof. It's an argument pilfered directly from the playground: "Yeah, well you don't like it cause you're not smart enough!" In this case, he's saying, "You don't like it cause you know your beliefs are wrong and invalid!"
In my case, at least, you couldn't be further from the truth. I dislike the show because I don't like preaching. Period. I don't watch evangelists on TV for the same reason. Why would I subject myself to that on a regular basis? Why do you?