S. Harrison 1
Trash or Treasure in the Works of Trey Parker and Matt Stone: What’s the Difference, and Who Decides?
On March 24, 2011, New York Times reporter Ben Brantley described The Book of
Mormon as “the best musical of this century… Heaven on Broadway.” He praised the writers, producers, and actors for “achieving something like a miracle.” As if this weren’t enough,
Brantley went on to describe the musical as “cathartic” and the characters as both “likeable and funny.” In an online video titled “Subversive, Satirical, and Sold Out” posted on June 10, 2012,
60 Minutes host Steve Kroft commends the musical, stating that tickets for The Book of Mormon were the most heartily sought and hardest to obtain on Broadway this past summer. Moreover,
Kroft boasts of the creators’ “big heart” as the foundation of the musical’s success. To employ a simple Google search for The Book of Mormon – while oftentimes bringing up information on the actual book and its corresponding faith – is to call forth resounding reviews of praise from both professional and amateur critics. The performance is being described as witty and satirical, appealing to the vast majority of musical-goers.
However, The Book of Mormon with its undeniable success calls forth questions and criticism prompted by the previous works of creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone. Parker and
Stone are infamous for their roles as developers, producers of, and performers in South Park, a television show that, in the words of Kroft, “changed the face of cable television” with its lewd, scatological humor and sensitive (and correspondingly insensitive handling of) thematic elements. Since it premiered in August 1997, South Park has “predictably roused the ire of individuals and organizations concerned about its crude humor and irreverence toward all forms of authority” (Weinstock 8). It has offended as well as gained admiration from people of all walks of life, including followers of religions ranging from Christianity to Scientology and S. Harrison 2 politicians of all parties. The Christian Family Network has gone so far as to form a coalition dedicated to the effort to educate parents and “protect our youth from vile trash like South Park”
(Fagin).
It is simple to see the general difference in attitudes taken concerning the appeal and merit of both The Book of Mormon and South Park. One is of heavenly proportions, while the other appears to be anything but; however, in saying this, it is important to note that these two creative ventures share much more than the same creators. Both the musical and the television show have been described as satire, parody, and often offensive by a number of critics. Both are, in essence, about young men (or, in the case of South Park, boys) discovering themselves in the midst of an “explosive situation” not of their making (Kroft). Both employ racial and religious stereotypes in the effort to make a point or elicit a laugh from their respective audiences.
Not only are these two creations similar in styling and generalized plot development, but they both also act as parodies of the very genres that define them. The Book of Mormon clearly satirizes Mormonism and common Western misconceptions of Africa and the African people. It might not be as readily discernible to non-musical aficionados that Parker and Stone’s recent hit teases archetypes found in popular musicals as well. In her article “The Mormons Take
Manhattan: The Book of Mormon Soundtrack on God, Broadway and Africa,” Kristin Rawls writes:
Yes, the jokes are on Broadway, but you’ll only understand them if you’re a
fellow musical theatre geek. You won’t appreciate the parallels to “I Have
Confidence” unless you watched The Sound of Music over a hundred times
as a child. Nor will you notice that “Joseph Smith American Moses”
mocks The King and I’s take on Uncle Tom’s Cabin. Or that the vocal S. Harrison 3
arrangement of “Man Up” is a clever parody of “One Day More” from Les
Miserables.
Conversely, South Park mocked popular comedy show Family Guy in Season 10’s episode
“The Cartoon Wars.” In doing this, Parker and Stone strive to illustrate the point that they are, in fact, utilizing humor to serve a greater purpose – whereas Family Guy and its creators ascribe to a more mindless, randomized comicality (Fallows 166). In “South Park Heretics,” Randall
Fallows makes the case that Cartman acts out of character in this particular episode, instead embodying the views of his creators, stating, “I am nothing like Family Guy. When I make jokes, they are inherent to a story, deep situational and emotional jokes based on what is relevant and has a point, not just one random, interchangeable joke after another.” Fallows binds Parker and
Stone to the realm of theater in praising South Park as “an exemplarily incarnation of an older literary tradition, Theater of the Absurd” (166-167).
Resemblances aside, The Book of Mormon is undoubtedly a critical success deemed worthy of acclaim while South Park is viewed otherwise, according to Trey Parker, who surprisingly and honestly stated in an interview that, “We’ve never done anything that’s been that kind of… universally accepted” (“Blasphemy on Broadway”). But what acts as catalyst for such strong, polar perceptions of The Book of Mormon and South Park? Surely, with so many similarities in terms of subject matter and production, the issue must stem from something other than morality. And if our conflicting views are not, in fact, grounded in a societal sense of justice and the overriding desire to protect today’s youth, then it seems reasonable that the involved polarity exists in the differing media in which we receive The Book of Mormon and South Park. S. Harrison 4
In “Subversive, Satirical and Sold Out,” Kroft describes South Park as “the show that changed the face of cable TV” while Stone describes his and Parker’s goal in creating
The Book of Mormon as “trying to do something no one else has touched.” In many ways
Parker and Stone have succeeded in doing just that in all of their creations, but South Park has affected the world of television more significantly than The Book of Mormon has influenced the world of theater. An apparent explanation to this being that television, which was devised and expounded upon during the early 1900s (Burns 145-150), is a much newer form of entertainment than its live counterpart. Thus theater has already encountered oppositions and denigrations that television has only begun to face. In comparing South
Park and The Book of Mormon, it is obvious that both do not necessarily match the norm associated with their outlets, but The Book of Mormon is much more similar to previous musicals and plays than South Park was to television shows when it first aired in 1997.
According to the International Movie Database (or IMDb.com), some of the most popular shows to premiere in 1997, alongside Parker and Stone’s satirical and scatological comedy, included Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Stargate SG-1, Ally McBeal, and Dharma &
Greg. All of these shows featured adult elements (sex, violence, etc.) but none were met with the same outrage as South Park, which was condemned a year later as “dangerous to democracy” and “extremely mean-spirited” and “deplorable” by people such as Action for
Children’s Television founder Peggy Charren (Weinstock 3). Even now – fifteen years after the premiere of the show – online petitions demanding the termination of South Park can still be found. In the introduction to Taking South Park Seriously, Jeffrey Weinstock attributes the initial survival and continued success of the show to America’s “all or nothing” mentality, writing “the idea being that if everyone is offended equally, no one is S. Harrison 5 singled out, and therefore anyone who takes offense is being overly sensitive and ‘can’t take a joke’” (13). This stance applies well to the polarity founded in differing individual views of South Park as well as differing views displayed in regards to South Park and The
Book of Mormon in comparison.
Weinstock also writes “To begin, South Park clearly owes its existence – at least in its current form – to the existence of Comedy Central and, more generally, to what Paul
Wells has referred to as the development of ‘niche channels’…” (10). Consequently, it can be argued that The Book of Mormon owes its existence and critical acclaim to the history of theater and, namely, the pioneers of the Theater of the Absurd and Off-Off Broadway. Both dramatic trends presented new and oftentimes unsavory or improper themes and performances. Martin Eslin, author of The Theater of the Absurd, wrote, “The Theater of the Absurd has renounced arguing about the absurdity of the human condition; it merely presents it – that is, in terms of concrete stage images.” Absurdist plays regularly featured an otherworldly atmosphere, mixed genres, and “an unpredictable world that mirrors our own” (Crabb). Alternatively, Off-Off-Broadway, which was a theatrical tradition that developed in the 1950s to 1960s, is described as “an identifiable alternative to the mainstream” (Bottoms 124). Off-Off-Broadway performances were brought to life in smaller venues and exhibited nonconventional plots and production components. Due to this format, the playwrights’ and audiences’ penchant for the absurd and unusual, and a focus on one-act plays, Off-Off-Broadway performances were rarely offered critical analysis (Bottoms 124-125).
The Book of Mormon, while separated from Off-Off-Broadway and the Theater of the Absurd by many years, owes much of its popular success to the forefathers of both S. Harrison 6 theatrical traditions. In fact, the traditions of Off-Off-Broadway mirror closely the creative formation and production of The Book of Mormon. In Playing Underground: A Critical
History of the 1960s Off-Off-Broadway Movement, author Stephen Bottoms describes the movement as “founded on collaborative creation” and “communitarian,” which is demonstrated nicely in the formation of the idea that would eventually become The Book of
Mormon (ix). The Book of Mormon was the joint creation of not just Parker and Stone but also of Avenue Q creator Robert Lopez. The three met at a showing of Avenue Q in 2003 and, admiring and seeing similarities in one another’s previous works, struck up a conversation. In the “Authors’ Introduction” of The Book of Mormon: The Complete Book and Lyrics of the Broadway Musical, Parker notes having felt “This is exactly the thing
I’ve always dreamed about doing. This is exactly the thing I’ve always aspired to do on
Broadway…” The three were intrigued by their shared interests in Joseph Smith and
Mormonism and, by the end of the night, devised to “team up and do something.
Something about Mormons” (Parker, Lopez & Stone). This led to a collaborative effort with the trio meeting frequently, fusing their interests, talents, and Lopez’s experience creating an offbeat musical that found its way to Broadway and critical success into something that is prized as a work of theatrical art today.
While it took seven years to write, The Book of Mormon was brought to the stage rapidly. Parker and Stone spent the months preceding the Broadway opening by staging rehearsals, conducting minor rewrites, and directing the show. In an online news article,
Parker said, “It’s crazy how fast it is… We did four weeks of rehearsals, then two weeks of
‘tech,’ then went into previews. Seriously, this is what blew my mind: We only heard the thing with a full orchestra six days before the first paying audience” (Galloway). In many S. Harrison 7 ways, The Book of Mormon also overlaps with the historic practices of Off-Off-Broadway in terms of the form in which performances were originally conducted. Bottoms describes the venues of the theatrical movement as “those generally regarded ‘illegitimate’ by the established apparatus of press, funding bodies, and professional theatrical institutions.” He lists anything from café theaters to disused warehouses as possible staging locations for the producers of Off-Off-Broadway shows (vii).
While The Book of Mormon quickly found its way to Broadway and, subsequently, the large, adoring audiences particular to the venue, it’s significant to note that it began in a series of different forms that lent themselves well to a much smaller opening; in fact, until February 2010, the musical was slated to open Off-Broadway at the New York Theater Workshop until film producer Scott Rudin recommended otherwise, hoping a heightened sense of pressure would more closely emulate the working conditions with which Parker and Stone were familiar (Healy).
In the same Galloway article mentioned previously, Parker and Stone admitted that Lopez
“pushed for the stage” (as opposed to television or film) and recommended workshopping the musical in parts as it was developed – a tenet of Off-Off-Broadway used by The Open Theater that was “dedicated to open-ended exploration rather than to production, and was, as the name further implied, open to anyone interested in the process” (Bottoms 173). With the trio’s interest and use of the workshop process, The Book of Mormon had much humbler beginnings than one might expect. Galloway writes:
The group embarked on the first of a half-dozen workshops that would take place
during the next four years, ranging from 30-minute mini-performances for family
and friends to much larger-scale renderings of the embryonic show. They spent S. Harrison 8
hundreds of thousands of dollars of their own money, still unconvinced they’d
take it any further.
Parker and Stone’s latest work (as well as the entirety of their creative contributions) also bears commonalities with Off-Off-Broadway’s treatment of camp as well as “the queer” and
“absurd.” Camp is defined by Bottoms as “the exaggerated enactment of one’s individuality, rather than on creating a theatrical illusion of natural, ‘authentic’ behavior…” (158). Its definition, according to the online version of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, is “a style or mode of personal or creative expression that is absurdly exaggerated and often fuses elements of high and popular culture.” The Book of Mormon is intrinsically campy in its depiction of setting, character, and song.
Some of the most exaggerated elements of the musical obviously manifest themselves in the subjects Parker, Stone, and Lopez intended to parody. The African people are all depicted as being uneducated and infested with AIDS, the village doctor repeats the phrase “I have maggots in my scrotum” throughout the performance, and the village is terrorized by a violent, uneducated warlord, and his M-16-toting guards. While the Mormon missionaries, on the other hand, are largely indoctrinated from their time at the Missionary Training Center and naïve enough to follow any religious notion they are told no matter how illogical it may seem
(demonstrated wonderfully in Andrew Rannells’ performance as Elder Price of “I Believe”).
They even go so far in the name of faith as to dispel their own feelings and desires out of fear of the “Spooky Mormon Hell Dream.” However, camp and its use of popular culture are also prevalent in the depiction of Elder Cunningham. Poorly versed in the lessons of the actual Book of Mormon, Cunningham teaches the African people he is tasked with converting a modified tale S. Harrison 9 of Joseph Smith involving well-known characters and plot lines from films and novels like Star
Wars and The Lord of the Rings.
In terms of “the queer,” Off-Off-Broadway traditionally refers to the use of homosexual elements as well as unusual, humorous theatrical moments, or a combination of the two. Bottoms makes reference to playwrights such as Charles Ludlam, Al Carmine, and Tony Kushner for creating work that “was outrageously funny” yet able “to subvert all kinds of received assumptions in the process” (357). These shows often featured actors dressed in drag and homosexual relationships as well as an underlying rejection of the stereotyping and censorship of same-sex relations. In many ways, The Book of Mormon speaks to this particular component of
Off-Off-Broadway. While homosexuality is, perhaps, not a primary theme of the musical, it is referenced in many ways – from the many outright mentions of AIDS, which is often discussed in conjunction with homosexuality in works of popular culture, to Elder McKinley’s upbeat advice to “turn off” any thoughts and experiences that don’t fit with or are condemned by the doctrine of Mormonism and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints’ perception of
“rightness.” In the case of Elder McKinley, his own struggle with homosexuality is the subject he wishes to repress and, thereby, reject. As with its representation of the Mormon faith and misconceptions of Africa, it can be argued that The Book of Mormon attempts to – subconsciously and in the vein of Off-Off-Broadway acts – raise awareness of the sense of repression and wrongdoing generated by stereotyping through humor that relies on outrageous uses of stereotypes.
Parker, Stone, and Lopez have obviously benefited from the founders of and contributors to the Off-Off-Broadway Movement of the 1960s. The playwrights and performers discussed had already embraced a sensibility differing from the common perception of theater and, using S. Harrison 10 humor and outrageous tactics, created undeniably artistic works that were at times absurd, at times ridiculous, and, more often than not, considered fabulous by fans (albeit few in number) of the movement. However, The Book of Mormon – while having similar, smaller roots – has superseded the historical conventions of Off-Off-Broadway. It’s possible to say that this departure from smaller venues and smaller audiences might be disparaged by loyalists of the movement, much in the way that the popular success of Hair was viewed as “an unashamedly commercial popularization of off-off ideas and techniques, and featured a simplistically idealistic hippie ideology that had little in common with the more sophisticated, skeptical tone of most off- off productions” (Bottoms 9). However, it’s more likely that The Book of Mormon be viewed as a reboot and modernization of off-off ideals. In fact, near the conclusion of his book, Bottoms writes:
The off-off-Broadway movement may have run its course by the early 1970s, but
as examples such as those outlined above indicate, its independent, underground
spirit did not die out. Having mutated over the years, like an adaptable, resilient
virus, it continues to survive in a variety of contexts. Perhaps, when the conditions
exist once again for its contagion to spread, it will resurface to ‘plague’ us once
again (364).
With the musical incarnation of their quirky and provocative ideas, unlike with
South Park, Parker and Stone were able to present a relatively new and blatantly satirical performance with little resistance. This is due in large to the discussion above and the historical context of theater and, in particular, the Off-Off-Broadway movement. While
Parker and Stone revealed that they have witnessed “two walkouts” during performances of
The Book of Mormon, the vast majority of critics and viewers have regarded the show as S. Harrison 11 more than favorable (“Blasphemy on Broadway”). The same cannot be said of South Park and, if the medium is to blame, then it becomes a matter of – not just venue and historical framework – but also of audience makeup, levels of accessibility, and form. The question then becomes: would South Park be handled with more finesse, analyzed as a form of critical social commentary, and acknowledged as a valid art form as opposed to a controversial, raunchy and deeply offensive romp if the television were abandoned in favor of a different medium?
In an effort to answer this question – as well as the broader and initial query of the mechanism creating the polarity found between The Book of Mormon and South Park – each respective audience must be juxtaposed, allowing for proper analysis of similarities and differences in nature. In terms of audience comparison, the gender, age, financial condition, and lifestyle of both Broadway and Comedy Central viewers must be taken into account. Any resemblances between the two – while complicating the opposing critiques of these works of Parker and Stone – must also be noted as telling, considering both The Book of Mormon and South Park have been popular in their own right and within their specific communities. Furthermore, it must be acknowledged that the creation of the musical can at least be partially attributed to the success and growth of the television show; therefore there may be some indication that the differing audiences should overlap at points.
In considering the factor of audience in regards to The Book of Mormon, South
Park, and the conundrum encountered when likening the praise and criticism evoked by each, surveys conducted on the generalized – yet significant – demographics of both
Broadway attendees and Comedy Central viewers (with a more specific look at South Park within the context of the channel) gathered in the past year prove quite useful. Information S. Harrison 12 gathered by The Broadway League shows that the general Broadway attendee from 2010 to
2011 fits the description of a white female tourist aged 44 years; 78 percent of theatergoers were also reported to have earned at least a college degree while 39 percent of them had attended graduate school. Moreover, the average theatergoer was shown to frequent
Broadway, attending five or more shows within a year.
A general survey of Broadway attendees cannot be taken as an absolute reflection of fans of The Book of Mormon, however. For instance, in a Los Angeles Times article written by Patrick Pacheco, the musical is quoted for appealing to a large number of young people. He cites 25 as “the dominant age group in the line that snaked for blocks just before the theater opened for general seating” for a free showing at the Eugene O’Neill Theater just weeks after the musical’s abundant triumph at the Tony Awards. A valuable factor to note, in this instance, is that the audience was chosen by lottery and awarded a free viewing of the show as an effort made by Parker and Stone to include a younger and less financially stable age group in the show’s success. Assumedly, this lottery was also put into place to show appreciation for the faction that aided in bringing Parker and Stone to the success and popularity – albeit limited – they have experienced since the debut of South Park.
In stark contrast to the demographics of theatergoers, South Park was shown to have a predominantly male following according to an online press report posted by
Comedy Central on December 21, 2011. It was listed as the “#1 Comedy In All Of
Television Among Men 18 to 24” but was also largely favored by adults 18 to 49. South
Park, which was in its fifteenth season in 2011, averaged over 3.6 million viewers; this season marked an increase in viewers aged 18 to 49 as well as men aged 18 to 34. At the time of this report, South Park’s Facebook page sported 35 million fans and was the third- S. Harrison 13 most popular cable television show on the social media website. Since then, the number of fans has risen by over seven million. From a broader perspective, a survey compiled in
2008 by Comedy Central using Nielson Media Research and MRI Doublebase 2007 data, depicts the average Comedy Central viewer as a person aged 18 to 34 with only 11 percent of all viewers having earned a college degree. The general viewer was shown to embrace a lifestyle circulating around technology and gaming.
So what does this data reveal? Obviously, it is simple to note the fact that gender, age, and economic class affect the appeal of each venue and, subsequently, both works of
Parker and Stone. It is also possible to draw the conclusion that the majority of South Park viewers are young men while the majority of The Book of Mormon viewers may be middle aged women – though, again, it’s likely that the statistics for attendees of all musicals (and, in particular, Parker and Stone’s recent performance) differ from the norm of theatergoers.
This claim seems surprising given the general assumption that women are more easily offended and sensitive than men; however, one must also note that these women are more mature – both in age and education – than their male counterparts.
In her academic article “Women as audience: the experience of unwaged women of the performing arts,” Susan Kippax writes:
It is argued that women’s experience of the arts is produced in a set of
contradictions. As well as the contradiction of ‘men’s work’ and ‘women’s
work’, there are contradictions in the world of arts. To put it rather badly,
the arts are seen as feminine. Most boys and young men are actively
discouraged from expressing an interest in the arts; they are turned to more S. Harrison 14
‘manly’ interests. Women rather than men are encouraged to become skilled
in the appreciation of the arts (5).
Therefore, while The Book of Mormon does indeed employ lewd language as well as thematic elements, in the case of theatergoers, women may be more capable of overlooking these condemnable attributes, distinguishing an artistic statement as opposed to simple vulgarity for vulgarity’s sake. This appreciation of the arts also renews an interest in medium analysis – put simply, The Book of Mormon is presented in a way (on stage) that lends itself to a higher level of credibility and critical appreciation whereas South Park is seen in a fashion (television and, specifically, a cartoon televised on a cable network) that is much more easily discredited as immature.
As previously mentioned, theatergoers are statistically better educated and more financially stable than the vast majority of viewers of Comedy Central. This detail enables an extended polarization of, not just reception, but standards of class and society between the audiences of South Park and The Book of Mormon. In this way, theatergoers can be seen as capable of both demeaning and defending works similar in nature to those of Parker and Stone due to their more sophisticated tastes. Likely, as mentioned earlier, those same tastes – honed through education and affluence – enable viewers and critics of theater to react to The Book of Mormon sensibly, noting allusions to religion, popular culture, classical works, and anything striking the fancy of Parker and Stone that might seem understated in comparison to their characteristic jokes about flatulence and obvious blasphemy in the depictions of God, Jesus, and other notable religious figures.
In this same vein, theatergoers may be more shrewd in their capability of discerning that “the joke’s on them” than viewers of South Park, who may fail to see that the show is S. Harrison 15 making fun of them as well as others. After all, no one is truly free from Parker and Stone’s wrath – no matter their economic class, ethnicity, religion, etc.; the duo seeks to criticize consumers, after all, a category in which they themselves as well as all viewers of television and theater fit within quite well. It can also be said that the sensibilities of Parker and Stone align more closely with theatergoers than television viewers (no matter fan or foe) due in large to the fact that Parker and Stone are both in their forties, possess college degrees (in film, no less), and are admirers of theater. Therefore, a follower or critic of theater may be more likely to recognize the underlying intent present in the pair's work than the average cable television subscriber.
Another notably dissimilar factor between theater and cable television exists in cost and levels of accessibility. As mentioned previously, the average theatergoer is a tourist who is not only a regular Broadway consumer but is also in possession of an undergraduate or, in some cases, post-graduate degree. Due to their affluence, which is at least partially attributable to their education and established place in the professional realm, theatergoers are more capable of and willing to seek out entertainment that, to some, may seem too costly and unrealistic due to its temporary and transient nature. Cable television viewers, on the other hand, pay a minimal monthly fee to have their entertainment lodged within their personal environment. The disparity is obvious: Broadway shows and musicals are luxury items that must be actively sought after whereas television is a more common, passive commodity.
Once cable television is activated in a household, it remains there until it is disabled
(yet again, a choice made by the owner) and is free to be used by any members or guests of the family. In this way, South Park can be viewed as intrusive – an unwanted offense S. Harrison 16 disguised in the form of a packaged deal. Bill Carter writes in a New York Times article,
“Comedy Central is the No. 2 cable network among male viewers, trailing only ESPN,” which allows for the alienation of a large number of television viewers. So, while there is a definitive and acknowledged fan base for South Park as well as its network brethren, the fear lodged by some parents, Action for Children’s Television, and The Christian Family
Network that the youth are being corrupted is in part validated by the immediate accessibility of the show. However, with today’s technology, the option to block specific channels exists and could be used more effectively to root out this resistance to a show that
“is not directed toward the common people, in the sense of the great masses. Both the writers and the critics know very well the value of being outsiders and of participating in the high art myth of the misunderstood genius” (Ravenwood 7)
An example in which this issue of immediacy – or accessibility – is highlighted is shown in the extraordinarily positive reviews of The Book of Mormon discussed at the beginning of this text as well as the generally affirmative ratings received by the 1999 film South Park: Bigger,
Longer & Uncut. The film, which was an animated comedy written, produced, and directed by
Parker and Stone, featured many of the same characters and concepts shown throughout the television series. It received a rating of 7.8 out of 10 on the International Movie Database website, an 81 percent “freshness rating” on Rotten Tomatoes, a Metascore (or critics’ score) of
73 out of 100 as well as a user score of 8.7 out of 10 on Metacritic. The film features similarities to The Book of Mormon in many ways – from being released in theaters (though, in this case, cinematic theaters) for a cost to employing musical, plot-forwarding elements to, in true Parker and Stone form, making fun of its own perceived audience. In a Slate review, David Edelstein writes, “Parker and Stone (and screenplay collaborator Pam Brady) have concocted nothing less S. Harrison 17 than an 80-minute Swiftian epic--a ribald, hyperbolic satire of the notion that movies ‘warp our fragile little minds.’”
As an aside, South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut also demonstrates Parker and Stone’s cognition of the elements of South Park that prohibit it from garnering a larger number of viewers as well as more positive critical reception. The film depicts a foreign film that the four boys sneak into, view, admire, and learn foul language and mannerisms from. Upon realizing that this film has “corrupted” their children, the parents of the town of South Park call for blood, taking such actions as to capture the creators of the foreign film-within-a-film and implanting one of the boys with a computer chip that registers his language usage and electrically shocks him if a word deemed inappropriate is spoken. One of the most enjoyably telling scenes of the film, which is both illustrative of Parker and Stone’s typical style as well as an unapologetic gesture to South Park critics calling for the protection of the youth, shows an argument between the show’s fictional Canadian Representative and the mother of the character Kyle. During this confrontation, the Canadian Representative calls out the hypocritical nature in the parents’ utter fear and outrage at the use of “dirty language” for humor when American films are known for being fraught with overtly violent images; unsurprisingly, a valid response is not elicited from the mother or any of the other protestors of the Canadian film and the subject of duplicity reoccurs throughout the film.
Analysis of components of audience, venue, and accessibility combined create the theory that South Park might function more appropriately and critically removed from the field of cable television – perhaps finding a more acceptable home in film or pay-per-view channels. This change would make it so viewers, who may find the antics of the four boys and their unconventional town and families offensive or unpalatable for younger-aged spectators, would S. Harrison 18 be unable to happen across the show without intention. But, in regards to the work of Parker and
Stone and their goal to illustrate the absurdity of today’s culture and interests while paying ill regard to offending their viewers, it might relieve some of the negative tension from South Park and its place on cable television by sharing an excerpt of the conclusion of Emily Ravenwood’s article, “The Innocence of Children: Effects of Vulgarity in South Park”:
Given that this artistic specimen is thus directed, in some way, toward the
common people, as well as drawing on them as source material, it certainly merits
the term vulgar. But I do not count that term as merely a contemptuous dismissal,
relegating the show forever to the realm of low art. Indeed, considering what I
suggested above about the function of vulgarity in creating both high and low art,
such a label is anything but a dismissal. The writers admit that they draw
inspiration for their artistic vulgarity directly from their own memories of
childhood; as long as this is true, a viewership of children who have never heard
the term avant-garde and consider the disjointed plot a good picture of their
reality will continue to drive up the ratings value of this show (8).
One final consideration in analyzing the conflicting appraisements of the works of Parker and Stone, the mechanisms creating said conflict, and the validity of both works as art is the very different uses of form in The Book of Mormon and South Park and how they might affect the perception of these works. The Book of Mormon is, for lack of better words, live action – a type of presentation that is determinedly more realistic, in spite of subject matter, than South Park’s animation. While animated shows aimed at adults have become more and more common in the past several years, when South Park aired in 1997 cartoons were still largely seen as childish and geared toward a younger clientele. This perception of animation as “un-adult” no doubt caused S. Harrison 19 some confusion upon South Park’s inception and premiere on cable television and this may be, at least in part, the source of its violent defamation in earlier years.
However, it is quite obvious that South Park’s target audience is not children in most cases; the show delves into serious subject matters such as sexuality, race, and religion yet is viewed through the lens of childhood – often demonstrating how it takes a less-honed mentality to truly discern the cause, effect, and remedy to an issue. Furthermore, Parker and Stone object to the idea that South Park is strictly “cartoonish,” stating in a New York Times article, “Cartman's eyes never bulge out of his head or anything like that; the characters aren't stretchable.'' In the same piece, writer Lisa Zeidner surmises that “By using high-tech computer animation methods to get their distinctive low-tech look, and by having such unrealistic-looking little boys talk so much like real little boys, Mr. Parker and Mr. Stone rewrite the relationship between animation and reality in a highly original way” (TELEVISION/RADIO; A Study Guide to South Park). If anything, perhaps this originality should allow for South Park’s unadulterated access into the art community.
The Book of Mormon and South Park are similar in many ways due to the interests of their makers; however, while their differences are exhibited in technicalities – medium, audience demographics, and form – one is more socially acceptable than the other despite their shared concentration on combining elements of stark realism with the absurd. Perhaps this could change, allowing for South Park’s ascension to a critically acclaimed creative venture “achieving something like a miracle” comparable to The Book of Mormon, but it’s unlikely that the perception of South Park will ever truly be alterable in the minds of those who vilify it. If anything can be said of the relationship of these two works of Parker and Stone, it is that The
Book of Mormon’s success is not only owed to the playwrights and performers of Off-Off- S. Harrison 20
Broadway and the Theater of the Absurd, who fought adversity, disparagement, and a lack of critical success during their day, but also to Parker and Stone’s willingness in their previous works (namely South Park, but their earlier films Orgazmo and Team America: World Police bear mention as well) to do what had not been done and could not be considered as acceptable nor as a unique, eccentric work of art during the late 90s.
In closing, it’s likely that – even if South Park could be redeemed for the masses – creators Parker and Stone would lack interest or even openly despise the very idea. They have both admitted in a variety of interviews over the years that they write simply to amuse, entertain, and impress themselves and each other; they are open to critique in any form and with any purpose, but they do not plan out and create their work with the hopes of being deemed “artists,”
“geniuses,” or “celebrities.” In Zeidner’s New York Times article “TELEVISION/RADIO; A
Study Guide to South Park,” Parker says, “We got to Hollywood… and passed the time by ripping on celebrities, and then became celebrities ourselves and now people rip on us. And we're like: 'Good. Good. Do it.' Bring on the backlash against the backlash. Because not doing it is what we're against.'' In many ways this outright dismissal of critical acknowledgement and success is what makes Parker and Stone’s work representative of art. This same attitude is, perhaps, the catalyst enabling the duo to consistently produce entertaining parodies that simultaneously delight, offend, and provoke self- and cultural-reflection much to the chagrin of more conservative communities and organizations.
Works Cited
S. Harrison 21
"Blasphemy on Broadway." Interview by Jake Tapper. Abcnews.go.com. ABC, 25 Mar. 2011.
Web. 6 Oct. 2012.
Bottoms, Stephen. Playing Underground: A Critical History of the 1960s Off-Off
Broadway Movement. Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2006. Print.
Brantley, Ben. "Missionary Men With Confidence in Sunshine." Rev. of The Book of
Mormon. Theater.nytimes.com. The New York Times, 24 Mar. 2011. n pag. Web. 6 Oct.
2012.
Burns, R.W. Television: An International History of the Formative Years. London:
The Institution of Electrical Engineers, 1998. 145-150. Print.
Carter, Bill. "Home Base for Laughs? Comedy Central Thinks So." The New York Times.
The New York Times, 28 Mar. 2007. n pag. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
“Comedy Central Ends 2011." Comedy Central. Comedy Central, 20 Dec. 2011. Web. 19
Nov. 2012.
The Demographics of the Broadway Audience 2010-2011." The Broadway League.
Broadway Theatre Industry, 2011. n pag. Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
Edelstein, David. "Triumph of the Swill." Slate Magazine. Slate, 9 July 1999. n pag.
Web. 19 Nov. 2012.
Fagin, Barry. "Goin' Down to South Park." Reason.com. Reason, May 2010. n pag. Web.
10 Oct. 2012.
Fallows, Robert. “South Park Heretics.” Taking South Park Seriously. New York:
State University of New York Press, 2008. 165-171. Print.
Galloway, Stephen. "Why South Park's Trey Parker and Matt Stone Now Say It's 'Wrong'
to Offend." The Hollywood Reporter. The Hollywood Reporter, 24 Mar. 2011. S. Harrison 22
n pag. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.
Healy, Patrick. "The Twisty Road to Uganda and Broadway." The New York Times. The
New York Times, 13 May 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2012.
Kippax, Susan. "Women as Audience: The Experience of Unwaged Women of the
Performing Arts." Media, Culture & Society 10.1 (1988): 5-21. Web.
Pacheco, Patrick. "Appealing to the 'South Park' Demographic with Free Tickets to 'Book
of Mormon'" Latimes.com. Los Angeles Times, 1 July 2011. n pag. Web. 19 Nov.
2012.
Parker, Trey, Robert Lopez, and Matt Stone. "Authors' Introduction." Introduction. The
Book of Mormon. New York: Newmarket, 2012. xxi-xiii. Print.
Ravenwood, Emily. "The Innocence of Children: Effects of Vulgarity in South
Park."CLCWeb: Comparative Literature and Culture 5th ser. 1.2 (1999): 1-9. Web.
Rawls, Kristin. "The Mormons Take Manhattan: The Book of Mormon Soundtrack on
God, Broadway and Africa." GlobalComment.com. GlobalComment, 2 June
2011. n pag. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.
"Subversive, Satirical and Sold Out." Interview by Steve Kroft. Cbsnews.com. CBS
News, 10 June 2012. Web. 6 Oct. 2012.
Weinstock, Jeffrey. “Introduction: Taking South Park Seriously.” Taking South
Park Seriously. New York: State University of New York Press, 2008. 1-20. Print.
Zeidner, Lisa. "TELEVISION/RADIO; A Study Guide for 'South Park'" The New York
Times. The New York Times, 19 Nov. 2000. n pag. Web. 18 Nov. 2012.