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.