The satirical comedy South Park recently celebrated it's 200th episode. And to celebrate the show decided to do it's best to offend absolutely everyone by making a mockery out everything from popular movie stars, minorities, Tom Cruise, and every major world religion in one hour.
But the show outraged some extreme Muslim groups when it decided to include in it's vast list of targets the prophet Mohamed.
I do not wish to dive into the question of Islam and South Park, (although here a discussion on Larry King Live.) but rather dive into the idea of South Park and the sacred. At first glance South Park would seem to not hold anything sacred at all. It degrades religious figures ranging from Buddha, to Joseph Smith, to Moses, Jesus and yes Mohamed. Nothing is off limits, and if you're going to try to tell them something is off limits then they're going to make sure and say it louder.
But in an interview with BB Matt Stone and Trey Parker, the creators of South Park, reveal that there are perhaps things which are sacred to them to. (Here is the link to the youtube video, but be warned, although the vast majority of the interview is profanity free Matt and Trey still manage drop a few in there, so I felt it more wise to put the quotes I wanted in quotations.)
"South Park matters to us, it's our whole world."
Matt Stone
"It matters to me that when we talk about Mohamed that we can say that this or we did this me. Just me. I don't think it's going to change the world. But just being able to have that conversation.
Trey Parker
(For those who ventured to watch the youtube I may not have quoted them word perfect since the interviewer would interrupt from time to time, but I digress.)
An earlier post commented on how no religion is safe on TV. This could be because Television writers, producers and actors, although having a value structure very close to religious folks, have a very different value system.
What I mean by that is although South Park is not a religion itself, like the religious group it has its articles or faith and sacraments. Only, in the case of South Park, your right to ridicule, satire, and offend others is what you hold as that which is sacred to you. Both of these guys were willing to risk their lives as a testimony of how much they value free speech.
Certainly there is merit to this view. If people, like say Galileo, were overly cautious of offending their community at the time, many breakthroughs in science, religion, and philosophy which we have benefited from today.
But could there be a middle ground? Is there a way to have a productive debate on different belief systems and religious institutions without being intentionally offensive? Are free speech and civility inherently at odds? The argument goes that if civility limits us in how we voice our opinions or what we words we say then we are not truly free to say what we want. But I believe there is a middle ground where South Park (and in the larger context society as a whole) can still voice their incredulity at certain traditions in various religions while still showing the same respect for the sacred as they would want the religious groups to respect what they think is sacred.
So I guess my question is, in a televised 21st century are free speech and civility towards religious views inherently at odds, or is there a place in the middle where religions can be critiqued but not ridiculed? And if television shows like South Park tried this strategy would people still watch or would it be too boring?
I think it is possible for there to be middle ground and for religions to be portrayed in a respectable manner. However, viewership is very important and nobody watches a show such as South Park to truly learn about a religion. I think many people learn certain aspects about a religion by watching South Park, even though it is not accurate 100 percent of the time. For example, my friends in California watch South Park and asked me about Family Home Evening and Joesph Smith because of the show. As a result, I think some of the fun makes religion appealing to a selected few.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, Jason great job on this post. South park is just one of those shows that is always sparking a debate. Your question about finding a middle ground is a very good question, and it would be ideal if religion and media could find that middle ground where respect could be maintained in the same sphere as entertainment. My question though is how do you find a middle ground when the entertainer's point is to shock and push the limits? Although it is in bad taste ( in my opinion) to take entertainment to the point of offense to others, it can be said that there are too many people with differing views to please, south park's objective and motive is to push boundaries, and they are completely within their right to do so. Whether they want such a reputation is up to them, but in the meantime those easily offended need to buck up, because media isn't getting any more conservative these days.
ReplyDeleteAnd :) in my opinion, freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings every time. It's so important that We keep that channel Open, because it allows us to learn, worship freely, and communicate with each other about what we believe. I guess we need to find our sense of humor or ultimately avoid those shows that would offend us. In the world, but not part of it...
ReplyDeleteI feel that I must first state that I am an avid South Park watcher/fan. I have seen every episode since the fifth season, including the episode titled "All About the Mormons". While I did not like that episode, I was surprised that it didn't show any explicit falsehoods about the church, or the Joseph Smith story, it just cast the whole thing in an implicit light of falsehood. But when it comes to religion, the creators may be blasphemous in our eyes, but they also try to understand the religion they are talking about. The reason that it is forbidden to draw the prophet is to avoid the worshiping of an image of the prophet. For a long time there were drawings of the prophet Mohamed for illustrative purposes without an association of death threats. The South Park creators do not feel that their drawings are going to be worshiped anytime soon, and so they feel they are not in extreme violation of any law.
ReplyDeletePerhaps the most ironic part of the debate about showing the prophet Mohamed is that he has been featured in the opening credits of every episode since the third or fourth season (South Park is now in its 14th season).
Disclaimer: HUGE fan of the show. Nearly every episode I've seen has been hilarious (judge me if you will), but I can absolutely see how the show comes off as distasteful and even vile to a large segment of the population. I’ve had so many friends defend this show as being intelligent political and social commentary presented in a comedy setting, but sometimes it really does just feel like arbitrary filth, which seems to be great for ratings in this generation. Is that what the show’s creators are really after (the money), or are they after some higher purpose? Nobody really can know for sure. But one thing I can tell you is that these guys really have no regard for feelings or sensitivities.
ReplyDeleteIn 2006, Issac Hayes, a musician and voice of Chef, a popular character on the show, quit the show just a few months after South Park premiered an episode making fun of Scientology, Hayes’ religion. Hayes had previously voiced episodes making fun of various other religions, including our own. Show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone responded by airing an episode “interpreting” the events from their point of view: Hayes’ character was brainwashed by an organization into becoming a pedophile and then was brutally killed off. Not surprisingly, the episode featured further satire of the Scientology religion.
My point: these guys just plain don’t care, and the way they got after hot topics and controversial issues, they might even feel some kind of journalistic duty to do so, even if the subject is a friend. Think about it: they are basically using their show as an editorial, except they have few (if any) rules and don’t have to answer to their bosses because the show rakes in so much money. Barring a strong sense of morals and values, how many journalists would walk down the same type of path (minus the filth, perhaps) if they had the same power?
Hmmm.... forgot to actually answer the question. These guys don't HAVE to find a middle ground because they've built up the power not to. Would we like them to? Yes! Do they have to? Absolutely not.
ReplyDeleteThat middle ground absolutely exists, but it's going to be harder and harder to find, and you can thank television, film and the internet for that.
I have also watched some episodes of South Park and I have noticed the key of their success is finding the irony and comedy in people who appear to be serious and/or sacred to the audience (us). Therefore, I feel that if South Park tries a new strategy, it will not be South Park. Each TV show is successful for what it is. If a TV show has a strategy that makes them successful and they changed it, they are putting their entire show at risk. If a TV show finds a strategy that works, they do not really need to worry in changing it but they need to worry in improving it and implementing it.
ReplyDeleteI have to admit that most of the times I have felt uncomfortable watching South Park, however I cannot expect they will change their strategies because they are not targeting that type of public. I feel there can be other TV shows that criticize religion and other topics in an impartial (middle ground) way; however it is hard to be in the middle because everything is relative. A "middle ground" might be achieved taking out offensive comments about others. TV producer can try to find shows placed in the middle ground, however it will not be able to compete with program as South Park because it will be targeting a different audience.
-Stefani Leyva Y.
I enjoyed the post. I have seen a clip or two from South Park before and I have heard enough about it to sense that the show's purpose or intentions are to poke fun at everything, to take nothing seriously and to find weaknesses in ideas, trends, values,religions and exploit them. I think of South Park as extreme entertainment. It doesn't seek to lift or inspire. It seeks to shock and offend. It gets a wow factor because it is offensive and produces a "wow, I can't believe this is airing and that they said those things!" They make money because of their shock value and because they are able to take someone else's ideas and make a mockery of them.
ReplyDeleteI don't thik there is a middle ground. I think the middle is a luke warm area...it isn't cold and it isn't hot...so it is boring. No one is satisfied in the middle.
I also wonder why entertainment decides to include religion in their storylines? Is there not enough material to make good storylines or is it so we, the viewer, can relate to the world around us and like the show more? Why is religion included in episodes?
Nothing is free from ridicule in our society. I personally feel that there is a fine line between critique and flat out mocking something, especially a religion. However, a majority of America does not feel that way. Everything is fair game. There is something to be said about the freedom of speech and expression. The South Park creators have obviously taken no reservations to making fun of everything, not just Mormons, and it really is their right to do so. Their show is utterly distasteful and crude (albeit, I have found myself laughing at some of their material) and they will continue to make more of the same, just as many shows take shots at various religions. I really don't think civility towards religion, especailly on TV, is going to get any better.
ReplyDeleteI prefer rude distasteful material to air on TV than to have everything censored. I don't think we should be spoon fed what we should believe, but at the same time we shouldn't expect to be spoon fed. I think this is an issue about society taking responsibility for what they know. Too many people look to TV as their only education on religion, culture, etc. If we are going to watch those over the top things, we need to allow ourselves to understand the opposite viewpoint, or at least the whole story. The problem isn't with television, let them do what they want. We need to have the willpower to choose what we watch and understand the things that make us uncomfortable.
ReplyDelete-Amber Glissmeyer
Personally I think that viewership would go way down if South Park tried to be sensitive in their portrayal of religious groups. South Park is popular because of its shock value and because it points out the idiosyncrasies within groups of people.
ReplyDeleteGoing along with what Candi said, I just read an article from the Los Angeles Times that ties in with this discussion about rights given by the First Amendment. A minister from an evangelical church wants to burn the Quran on September 11 to remember the terrorist attacks. I think that is one of the most ignorant and distasteful things I have ever heard but the point is this minister has the right to do it...just like South Park has the right to make fun of these sacred topics.
"So I guess my question is, in a televised 21st century are free speech and civility towards religious views inherently at odds, or is there a place in the middle where religions can be critiqued but not ridiculed? And if television shows like South Park tried this strategy would people still watch or would it be too boring?"
ReplyDeleteI think many of us agree that there is a solid middle ground; however, entertainment feeds off extremest views and out-of-the ordinary figures and actions. I think viewership has less to do with subject matter and more to do with how it's framed for being different. One thing that comes to mind is cable news. For example Fox News and CNN, flourish because they maintain a right or left wing audience that likes boldness and controversy. Without figures in the public eye like Glenn Beck, we wouldn't have as great of an opposition and viewership. I believe this is part of the reason for South Park's success. If the narrative wasn't narrow minded towards communities that have depth and pride in their differences, they would be little to entertain with. A lot of it has to do with the shock factor!!