Masaryk University Faculty of Education

MASARYK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF EDUCATION

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH AND AMERICAN STUDIES

American cartoons: the Image of Interpersonal Relationships in South Park and The Simpsons

BRNO 2012

Supervisor: Author: Mgr. Zdeněk Janík, M.A., Ph.D. Mgr. Jana Brandová Prohlašuji, že jsem tuto práci zpracovala samostatně a použila jen prameny uvedené v seznamu literatury.

Souhlasím, aby práce byla uložena na Masarykově univerzitě v Brně v knihovně Pedagogické fakulty a zpřístupněna ke studijním účelům.

Mgr. Jana Brandová

Acknowledgement:

I would like to thank to my supervisor, Mgr. Zdeněk Janík, M.A., Ph.D., for his constructive comments and valuable advice. I would also like to thank to my partner and family for their support.

Abstract: The thesis provides the reader with a detailed comparison of the image of interpersonal relationships in two popular American cartoons for adults South Park and The Simpsons. The thesis analyzes several episodes of these two cartoons and focuses on the different depiction of parent-child relationship, relationships with the elderly and community relations in both cartoons. In addition, the thesis compares and contrasts kinds of satire and parody which are used in both shows.

Key words: South Park, The Simpsons, cartoons for adults, parody, satire, family, parent-child relationships, senior citizens, community relations

Souhrn Tato závěrečná práce seznamuje čtenáře s rozdílným vyobrazením mezilidských vztahů ve dvou populárních kreslených seriálech South Parku a Simpsnových. Práce analyzuje několik epizod výše zmíněných kreslených seriálů a na základě této analýzy popisuje rozdílný přístup k zobrazení vztahů mezi rodiči a dětmi, postoji k seniorům a vztahů v místním společenství, které oba seriály zaujímají. Tato práce také porovnává rozdílné postupy ve využití satiry a parodie v obou kreslených seriálech.

Klíčová slova: South Park, Simpsnovi, kreslené seriály pro dospělé, parodie, satira, vztahy v rodině, senioři, vztahy v komunitě

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Introduction ……………………………………………………………………. 6 2. The Simpsons and South Park as adult-oriented cartoons …………………... 7 3. Parody and satire in The Simpsons and South Park …………………………. 9 4. Family ties in The Simpsons and South Park ………………………………… 11 4.1. Parent-child relationship in The Simpsons ……………………...... 12 4.2. Parent-child relationship in South Park ……………………………... 15 5. Senior citizens ………………………………………………………………….. 19 5.1. Senior citizens in The Simpsons ………………………………………. 20 5.1.1. Stereotypes about the elderly in The Simpsons ……………… 22 5.2. Senior citizens in South Park …………………………………………. 25 6. Community relations in The Simpsons and South Park …………………….. 31 7. Conclusion ……………………………………………………………………… 36 8. Resumé ………………………………………………………………………… 37 9. Bibliography …………………………………………………………………… 38

1. INTORDUCTION

Animated cartoons The Simpsons and South Park are undoubtedly highly popular among children and adults alike. Even though these cartoons originated in the United States, they are regularly watched by millions of people all over the world and their influence can be considered border-crossing and universal. Most viewers primarily enjoy laughing at funny scenes but they tend to overlook cultural critiques of America provided by the aforementioned cartoons. In fact, the cartoons frequently comment on contemporary issues and political and social problems. However, The Simpsons and South Park are often underestimated and not considered worthy of analysis. There are various reasons for this mistrust. Firstly, it is the medium of animation which might be seen as not reliable enough for scholars. Secondly, the commercial success of the shows, especially of The Simpsons, might also discourage academics from analyzing these cartoons. On the contrary, a substantial number of books which take the cartoons seriously have been published and a lot of people certainly realize that there is something more beyond hilarious jokes and lavatorial humor. Similarly, this thesis aims to prove that even massively popular animated cartoons such as The Simpsons and South Park are capable of providing relevant insights into American culture and could be analyzed as a serious piece of visual art. Furthermore, the thesis compares and contrasts the manner in which these cartoons comment on issues of interpersonal relationships and tries to decide which of the cartoons uses harsher criticism and more biting satire. The thesis provides the reader with a general characteristic of both cartoons and also defines the key terms parody and satire. Further, the thesis offers the analysis of several episodes which depict various interpersonal relationships such as family ties and community relations. It also examines various methods and techniques of criticism used by both cartoons and comments on their effectiveness. In my view, both The Simpsons and South Park have already proved to be bitter and outspoken critics of contemporary America. Secondly, these cartoons help non- American viewers to understand what is an average life in the United States like, and what problems average Americans have to face to. Therefore, I believe that these cartoons should not be seen only as a source of cheap laugh because they do have a deeper meaning and can be taken seriously. I hope this thesis will prove my point.

2. THE SIMPSONS AND SOUTH PARK AS ADULT-ORIENTED CARTOONS

Both The Simpsons and South Park can be classified as adult-oriented cartoons. It is the most important but also the only connection between these two shows. This fact might be surprising for a casual viewer, but the attentive one would certainly agree with the statement above, since by watching the shows regularly, one can notice a substantial number of differences on many levels. This chapter draws a comparison between The Simpsons and South Park from several points of view and it also explains the difference between adult-oriented cartoons and cartoons for children. Firstly, the term cartoon should be defined. According to Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, cartoon is “a short film that is made by photographing a series of drawings” or “a funny drawing in a newspaper of magazine, especially about politicians or events in the news”. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary similarly defines the word from two perspectives. First, as “a drawing, especially in a newspaper or magazine, which tells a joke or makes an amusing political criticism”. Second, as “a film made using characters and images which are drawn rather than real, and which is usually amusing”. It is obvious that both The Simpsons and South Park classify as cartoons in the sense of a short animated film. Secondly, the distinction between cartoons for children, such as Loony Tunes, and cartoons for adults, such as The Simpsons and South Park, has to be drawn. These two types of cartoons differ in many aspects. Not surprisingly, the most notable distinction exists between intended audiences. Cartoons as Loony Tunes are originally focused on children since they offer amusing and non-controversial plots and likeable characters. In contrast, cartoons such as The Simpsons and South Park are originally not intended for children because they very often narrate a highly controversial story, they openly mock politicians and popular personalities, and they are full of dark, slapstick humor. As mentioned above, the label of adult-oriented cartoons is the only link which interconnects The Simpsons and South Park. However, even this similarity is not very strong. Unlike South Park, The Simpsons is often watched by children and as Mullen claims its merchandise is also focused on children rather than adults. (Mullen, 2004, 79) In contrast, the creators of South Park, Stone and Parker, maintain that the show has always been intended for adults and South Park-licensed products are also focused on them. (Parker, Stove, 2003)

All in all, at first sight both cartoons might look similar. However, if one looks closer, they will discover that more differences than similarities can be found. In fact, the only similarity is the genre of adult-oriented cartoons, which is not even fully respected in the case of The Simpsons.

3. PARODY AND SATIRE IN THE SIMPSONS AND SOUTH PARK

As suggested in the previous chapter, the examined cartoons differ in many aspects. One of them is certainly the manner in which they caricature America and Americans. Although both shows can be classified as satirical, the use of satire and parody is different. While South Park employs a very sharp critique and dark humor, The Simpsons generally tends to use gentle mockery and mild criticism. A definition found in Dictionary of Literary Terms states that satire “uses laughter to attack its objects.” (Gray, 1992, 255) Likewise, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms describes satire as “a mode of writing that exposes the failings of individuals, institutions, or societies to ridicule and scorn.” (Baldick, 2001, 228) There are a lot of scenes and moments in both shows which prove that both cartoons satisfy the criteria for a satirical work. However, satire employed by the shows may vary in tone. According to The Anatomy of Satire, two types of satire, Horatian and Juvenalian, can be distinguished. The former reveals the truth with a smile and the latter bitterly criticizes and punishes mankind. (Highet, 1962, 235) Undoubtedly, it can be stated that The Simpsons tends to employ Horatian satire whereas South Park uses Juvenalian satire more frequently. Particular examples which support this notion will be provided in the following chapters of the thesis. Both cartoons certainly draw viewers‟ attention to vice and folly of American society. While doing so they employ not only satire but also parody. Parody is defined as an imitation which ridicules words, style and ideas of an author. (Cuddon, 1979, 483) Gray suggests that exaggeration and application of a serious tone to an absurd subject are some of the methods which are used by successful parody. (Gray, 1992, 210) Parody is also frequently used by both The Simpsons and South Park especially when they ridicule particular famous personalities, politicians or well-known films or songs. One of the questions is where the boundary between parody and satire lies, because these two concepts very often overlap and it is complicated to distinguish between them. However, there are more important questions to be answered. For instance, one might search for reasons of employing parody and satire by both cartoons when they deal with particular situations, behavior or personalities. In other words, instead of focusing on differences between satire and parody, one should focus on the

9 situations that are made the aim of satire and parody and think of the reasons for such an action. The same approach is adopted throughout the thesis. The focus of the thesis in not primarily on the precise distinction between the aforementioned terms but the thesis is more likely to look for the reasons which led the creators of both cartoons to a decision to satirize or parody certain behaviors, stereotypes or situations.

4. FAMILY TIES IN THE SIMPSONS AND SOUTH PARK

Family issues and family values are often discussed in both The Simpsons and South Park. Not surprisingly, the cartoons differ in the manner in which they explore this fragile topic. The crucial difference is of course in the tone of satire they employ. One of the next reasons for the aforementioned dissimilarity is the choice of main characters in both shows. While The Simpsons focuses its plot almost regularly on one of the members of The Simpson family, main characters on South Park are four children whose parents serve only as supporting characters. Becker states, “Unlike The Simpsons, in which central narrative tensions are frequently resolved by and in the family, the South Park kids usually have to resolve issues on their own.” (Becker, 2008, 159) This difference plays a crucial role in the depiction of family issues in both cartoons. The question is what kind of family both cartoons satirize. One should not jump to conclusions by stating that the shows caricature a “typical American family” since it is almost impossible to define a typical American family of the 21st century. Crandall agrees claiming that the concept of a classical American family consisting of a wife, husband and two children has undergone enormous changes in the last decades. Besides this concept, there are other types of families such as single-parent families, same-sex families; unmarried couples living together or married couples without children. (Crandall et. al, 1997, 220) Similarly, Stacey points out that the “breadwinner- homemaker” model of family life typical for the 1950‟s has nowadays become only one of an array of alternatives. (qtd. in Gerson, 1992, 35) Therefore, the label “typical American family” should be used with caution and it can be concluded that both cartoons satirize and caricature interpersonal relationships within a family regardless of its type or label. Gerson adds that the apparent changes in family structure over the past decades have promoted an ongoing debate over their nature and significance offering two interpretations. Firstly, she describes a pessimistic interpretation, which connects various modern social ills with “the breakdown of a traditional family”. Secondly, there is a less pessimistic perspective, which emphasizes the resilience of families which are adapting rather than disintegrating in face of social change. (Gerson, 1992, 35) The

Simpsons and South Park also differ in the interpretation of the changes in family structure, each inclining toward one of the aforementioned interpretations. Undoubtedly, one of the frequently commented family relationships in both cartoons is the relationship between parents and their children and the role of the child in the family. The Simpsons and South Park regularly deal with today‟s child-centered viewpoint of upbringing and the problems this approach might cause. Some of these problems are mentioned by Crandall in The American Ways, where she states that American families in general tend to place more emphasis on the needs and desires of the child and less on the child‟s social and family responsibilities. (Crandall et. al, 1997, 222) She also summarizes problematic approaches to upbringing children in contemporary America. Firstly, she describes a type of family in which children get too much attention and have more power than they should have. Secondly, she names families in which children do not get enough attention from either parent. Thirdly, she mentions busy parents who feel guilty for not spending time with their children and compensate the lack of attention with material things. (Crandall et. al, 1997, 222-223) Both The Simpsons and South Park quite frequently deal with the aforementioned difficult relationships between children and their parents.

4.1 PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN THE SIMPSONS

As discussed above, the label “typical/traditional American family” is rather disputable. However, some authors still use it. For instance, Cantor claims that The Simpsons portrays the average American family: father (Homer), mother (Marge) and 2.3 children (Bart, Lisa, and little Maggie). (Cantor, 2001, 162) Likewise, MacGregor states that The Simpsons may be described as “a fun-house mirror reflection of the „average‟ American family”. (qtd. in Scanlan and Feinberg, 2000, 129) These authors might be partly right if we consider the year of creation of the cartoon – 1989. In other words, the show might have represented the average American family of the late 1980‟s yet it fails to represent a typical American family of the 21st century since this concept is too broad and difficult to define. However, Cantor still believes that The Simpsons “indeed offers one of the most important images of the family in contemporary American culture.” (Cantor, 2001, 162)

The image of the family which The Simpsons provides the viewers with is not very positive: The Simpson family is often portrayed as a dysfunctional, middle-income family whose provider is a caricature of a father, whose head is an overly anxious mother and one of the children is a classical trouble-maker and under-achiever. On the other hand, as stated in Cantor, in the Simpson family the children are emotionally attached to their parents and the parents are emotionally attached to their children; therefore, the family functions quite well. (Cantor, 2001, 170) A substantial number of examples which support this notion can be found throughout the series. For instance, in the third episode of the seventh season, “Home Sweet Homediddly-Dum-Doodily”, Bart, Lisa and Maggie are after a series of mishaps accidentally given to foster parents since Homer and Marge are considered to be unfit and neglectful parents by the Child Welfare Board. At the trial, Homers tries to oppose this decision, but as usual, he only makes matters worse.

HOMER: OK, I‟m not going to win “Father of the Year”. In fact, I‟m probably the last guy in the world who should have kids. [the judge looks at him sternly] Er, wait, er, wait… can I start again? Fathering children is the best part of my day. I‟d do anything for Bart and Lisa. JUDGE: And, er, Margaret? HOMER: Who? Lady, you got the wrong file. MARGE: [whispering] It‟s Maggie. HOMER: Oh, Maggie. I got nothing against Maggie. (3F01, 8:25-8:58)

The foster home, into which Bart, Lisa and Maggie are placed, happens to be Marge‟s and Homer‟s next-door neighbors – the Flanders. The Flanders family is pious, loving and close-knit; all in all, a prototype of a perfect family. In addition, all of its members devote a lot of attention to the Simpson kids. However, Bart, Lisa and Maggie still miss their biological parents, although they look so imperfect when compared to Ned and Mod Flanders. LISA: I thought I could ride this thing out, but everything is just too weird here. BART: I know. They put honey on pancakes instead of maple syrup. LISA: They read “Newsweak” instead of nothing. (3F01, 12:13-12:17)

At the end of the episode, after Marge and Homer have attended compulsory Family Skill class and, therefore, they managed to overturn the judge‟s decision, the Simpson

13 family is reunited again and the children return happily to their beloved parents leaving the perfect and proper Flanders family behind. Cantor suggests that this episode reasserts the enduring value of the family as an institution since although it rejects the idea of a simple return to the traditional moral- religious idea of the family; it refuses to accept attempts to subvert family completely. (Cantor, 2001, 170) In other words, the message the episode sends is very clear: the family does not have to be perfect according to old-style morality and it also might seem dysfunctional to an outside observer, but if there are strong emotional bonds among the members, the family becomes the most important institution in the world no matter what happens. Not surprisingly, similar attitude toward family values and family itself can be detected throughout the series. Although the position the cartoon takes on the question of family seems rather ambivalent, it is, in fact, quite straightforward if one reads between the lines. Yet The Simpsons constantly mocks the traditional image of an American family, it celebrates the value of a family itself at the same time. That is why each episode which revolves its plot around family problems ends in a conciliatory tone and offers the viewers genuine family reconciliation no matter how harsh the crisis between Marge and Homer was, or how many troubles Bart caused. The episode “There‟s No Disgrace Like Home” is another fine example of the above discussed approach to treating family as an institution. The episode focuses on Homer‟s perception of the family and his dissatisfaction with his wife and children. This point of view is, however, not very common, because it is usually Homer who causes problems and who is looked down by the others. Nevertheless, it is him who regards his family not good enough this time. HOMER: Now, remember. As far as anyone knows, we are a nice, normal family. LISA: Hey Bart! Last one in the fountain‟s a rotten egg. HOMER: D‟oh! [chasing after them] Be normal! Be normal! (7G04, 7:49-7:54) As the episode proceeds, Homer is becoming more and more dissatisfied with the manner in which his family works and he keeps comparing his family to the other ones in the neighborhood, concluding that The Simpsons must be the worst family in town. He is especially disgusted with his children. HOMER: Dear Lord! Thank you for this microwave bounty, even we don‟t deserve it. I mean … our kids are uncontrollable hellions. Pardon my French. But they act like savages.[…] 14

Oh Lord! Why did You spite me with this family? (7G04, 11:22-11:37) At this point, one may say that the cartoon openly mocks and depreciates the importance of a family as an institution since having a family, more specifically; having children is depicted as a heavy burden to carry. However, one should not jump to conclusions because the ending of the episode reveals its real message. At the end of the episode, the Simpsons undergo a family therapy which does not ameliorate the situation in the family, thus the Simpsons are doubled the money they paid for it back. The unsuccessful therapy and especially the money they “earned” together, reunites the family since Homer plans to buy a new TV from which they all can benefit. The last scene depicts the whole family going happily hand in hand back home. Similarly to “Home Sweet Homediddly-Dum-Doodily”, “There‟s No Disgrace Like Home” compares The Simpsons with other families in town and The Simpson family does not bear the comparison with them; parents continually fail at raising their offspring, children are not well-behaved and the whole family does not fulfill the criteria for a perfect family according to traditional standards. In addition, the most striking thing is the fact that the Simpson family is not considered a proper family even by its members. However, despite all these imperfections, the Simpsons are able to work as a team, they are emotionally attached to one another and, in the end, they always find out that having a family has more pros than cons. All in all, the above analyzed episodes prove that although the Simpson family is far from being perfect and does not conform to the standards of a “proper” family, it is still the most sacred thing for all its members. Therefore, it can be concluded that the cartoon praises the family values although it seems to continually undermine and mock them. Cantor aptly concludes: “Many of the traditional values of the American family survive the show‟s satire, above all the value of the nuclear family itself.” (Cantor, 2001, 164)

4.2 PARENT-CHILD RELATIONSHIP IN SOUTH PARK

As regards South Park, it is more complicated to interpret the message about family and family values the cartoon sends when compared to The Simpsons. There are various reasons for this obscurity. Firstly, as discussed above, the show‟s main characters are four friends while their families do not occur regularly in the episodes. Secondly, the 15 plots of the series are not frequently focused on dealing with family troubles and commenting on relationships within a family. Unlike The Simpsons, South Park very rarely devotes the entire episode to describing family issues. Last but not least, South Park often sends a mixed message when it comes to praising or depreciating family values. Becker claims that much of the show‟s humor is based on mocking and transgressing “traditional family values” although an episode will occasionally include a theme that seems supportive of them. (Becker, 2008, 158) To illustrate Becker‟s point, the sixth episode of the first season called “Death” is analyzed. Although the episode develops rather a grotesque and bizarre plot, it provides the viewers with a surprisingly sound piece of reasoning about parents and their responsibility toward their offspring. In this episode, the boys‟ parents travel to New York City to protest against the television cartoon Terrance and Phillip, which they consider obscene and unsuitable for their children, leaving the boys on their own in South Park, Colorado. Unfortunately, Death himself arrives and starts to chase after the boys. When Stan phones his parents for help, they do not listen to their son‟s troubles and Stan is bitterly disappointed with their reaction.

STAN‟S MOM: What is it hon, did you break something? STAN: Mom, Death is here and he‟s trying to take all of us away with him. STAN‟S MOM: Stanly, honey, you need to leave Mommy alone, I‟m doing something very, very important for your little well-being there. STAN: Yeah, but mom … STAN‟S MOM: Here honey, talk to your father. STAN‟S DAD: Did you turn the heat down? STAN: Dad, Death is coming… STAN‟S DAD: Keep the thermostat under 70… STAN: [hangs up] Damn it! You know, I think that if parents would spend less time worrying about what their kids watch on TV and more time worrying about what‟s going on in their kids‟ lives, this world would be a much better place. KYLE: Yes, I think that parents get only so offended by television because they rely on it as a babysitter and the sole educator of their kids. (106, 17:05-18:10) While the boys have to solve the problem with Death on their own, the parents keep on protesting unaware what is happening to their children whose well-being they claim to enhance. Upon their return from New York City where they succeeded in getting

Terrance and Philipp taken of the air, the parents do not stay at home long because the banned show is quickly replaced by another and similarly vulgar one. The parents immediately head for New York City to continue with protests, leaving their children behind again. The episode finishes with a scene in which the boys discuss what other things they could be doing instead of watching TV.

KYLE: Hey Stan, now that Terrance and Philipp has been taken off the air, what are we going to do for entertainment? STAN: I dunno… we could start breathing gas fumes. CARTMAN: My uncle says that smoking crack is kinda cool. KYLE: Hey! Why don‟t we watch some of those porno movie thingies? (106, 19:15-19:27)

This episode comments on one of the problematic attitudes toward upbringing children as described by Crandall at the beginning of the chapter; namely, not giving children enough attention. The fact that the boys have to rely on themselves and fight against Death on their own while their parents protest against a TV show and do not even listen to their problems satirizes parents‟ inability to spend enough time with their children. Kyle‟s and Stan‟s dialogue about parents whose children are educated by television accurately summarizes this problem. The episode supports the notion that The Simpsons and South Park treat family and family values differently. Unlike on The Simpsons, the end of “Death” does not bring a reconciliation or understanding between the boys‟ world and the one of their parents‟. Instead, it reveals bitter truth about the relationships within the families which suffer from a lack of communication which leads to misunderstandings and mutual distrust. The above described behavior of parents corresponds with Becker‟s characterization of parents on South Park. He claims that parents are described as “deceitful, inept, shallow, rash, and basically unfit”. (Becker, 2008, 159) A great deal of skepticism about the value of family is apparent throughout the series. It seems that there in not a single “normal” family in the town of South Park. For instance, Eric Cartman, one of the four main characters, lives in a single-parent family with his mother and he constantly looks for his father‟s identity. In the episode “Cartman‟s Mum is Still a Dirty Slut”, it is revealed that his mother is a hermaphrodite; therefore she is also his father. (202) Not even supporting characters share a household with nurturing parents. The Tweeks made his son hopelessly addicted to caffeine and, consequently, he became enormously restless and overly anxious. Moreover, in the

17 episode “Gnomes” Tweek‟s father threatens that he will sell his son into slavery. (217) Apparently, South Park offers a rather cynical view of parents and the relationship between children and their parents in general. To conclude, the issue of family relationships and family as an institution is quite frequently discussed in both The Simpsons and South Park. However, as the above analyzed episodes suggest, each of the cartoons approaches this complex matter in a different way. The differences in dealing with the subject can be found on several levels. Firstly, it is the main characters that differentiate the cartoons and influence the focus of their plots. The main characters in The Simpsons are the members of the family; therefore the episodes frequently revolve their plots around family relationships and family issues. Moreover, as stated in Scanlan and Feinberg the experiences of the “nuclear family” are crucial for portrayal of all of the major social institutions. (Scanlan, Feinberg, 2000, 127) On the other hand, there is not so much space for dealing with family issues in South Park, since the families of four main protagonists are only subsidiary characters. However, the cartoon also depicts and comments on family relationships yet not as frequently as The Simpsons. Secondly, the cartoons differ in the manner in which they caricature relationships within a family. Both shows similarly use biting satire to comment on failed parent- child relationships during the course of the episode yet the denouement of the story varies considerably. Whereas in The Simpsons either the parents or the children learn their lesson and realize the importance of their family, such catharsis does not take place in South Park. Moreover, each attempt to reconciliation is bitterly satirized in this cartoon. Therefore it can be claimed that The Simpsons and South Park employ different kinds of satire while commenting on relationships within a family. The former tends to use milder Horatian satire while the latter employs darker Juvenalian satire.

5. SENIOR CITIZENS

Lockhart and Giles-Sims claim that the United States is an aging society that faces a rapidly growing population of elderly citizens. (Lockhart, Giles-Sims, 2005, 425) According to the Administration on Aging, about one in every eight Americans is 65 or older; this number represents 13 percent of the U.S. population. Further, the Administration on Aging projects that 19 percent of the American population - 72.1 million people - will be aged 65 or older by 2030. (Aging Statistic, aoa.gov) Spillman and Pezzin add that most of the increase will occur between 2010 and 2030 as the Baby Boom generation turns 65. Consequently, growing concerns about how the United States meets the needs of the elderly are being articulated. (Spillman, Pezzin, 2000, 347) As stated in Spillman and Pezzin, there is particular concern that “demographic trends affecting the number of potential family caregivers and the competing demands for their time threaten their willingness and ability to continue assume most of the responsibility for long-term care”. (ibid) With the regard to the fact that eighty percent of the care of the elderly is done by family members (Crandall et al, 1997, 240), it is not surprising that this demographic trend is of great concern to authorities and the public alike. Although the proportion of the care of the elderly done by family members is significant, Spillman and Pezzin report decline in this type of care, which may reflect decline in family commitment to caregiving, caused by increased demands on caregivers. (Spillman, Pezzin, 2000, 357) This notion is supported by results of the Pfitzer-ReACT/Gallup poll, whose findings reveal that although caring for an aging parent is perceived as a labor of love, it requires the significant investment of time and energy and causes negative ramifications on personal and work life of caregivers. (Mendes, 2011) Furthermore, the results of the aforementioned poll claim that sixty-four percent of caregivers care for the person that does not live with them. (ibid) Crandall explains this considerably high number by the fact that elderly Americans generally try to live on their own as long as possible because they want to be independent and self-reliant. (Crandall et al, 1997, 240) Schoeni adds that the share of the elderly who live with their children declined remarkably in the twentieth century, which might imply a diminished role of the family in providing assistance to elderly yet the exact cause of the decline is disputed. (Schoeni, 1998, 307) Either way, it can be concluded that the elderly typically

19 do not reside with their offspring and although the proportion of informal, family care, is still substantial, it is somewhat declining. There are various reasons for this general tendency such as increased demands on caregivers, decline in family commitment to caregiving or relative economic independence of the elderly.

The relationship between the elderly and their families is another field of interpersonal relationships which is explored by The Simpsons and South Park. Both cartoons satirize the stereotype of a senior citizen and the manner in which the rest of society behaves toward them. Predictably, the cartoons adopt a different approach while commenting on this issue. The Simpsons mainly uses one the supporting characters – Grampa Simpson – to caricature relationships toward the elderly. Grampa Simpson, who regularly appears on the show, also embodies a lot of stereotypes about senior citizens and the cartoon frequently explores these stereotypes by devoting a substantial number of episodes to Grampa‟s adventures. In contrast, there is not such a frequently featured supporting character as Grampa Simpson in South Park. The only senior citizen who appears on the show is the character of Stan‟s grandfather - Grampa Marsh. However, he very rarely appears on the show and his relationships toward the family are therefore not explored on regular basis. South Park certainly does not depict the issue of senior citizens as frequently as The Simpsons yet there is still a considerable number of episodes focused on the elderly that might be analyzed.

5.1 SENIOR CITIZENS IN THE SIMPSONS

As suggested above, The Simpsons often comments on the subject of the elderly through the character of Abraham J. Simpson, also known as Grampa Simpson. Grampa Simpson lives in at the local retirement home whose slogan is “Where the elderly can hide from the inevitable” and the entrance doors features a sign “Thank you for not discussing the outside world.” (The Simpsons, 2012) On the official websites of the show, Grampa Simpson is described as “a fountain of wisdom impossible to shut off” and as “a babbler whose leisure pursuit includes writing letters of complaint and arguing with his friend Jasper about the consistency of tapioca”. (The Simpsons, 2012) The character of Grampa Simpson embodies common stereotypes about senior citizens and

20 his relationship toward The Simpsons, more precisely, their relationship toward him caricatures general societal attitude toward the elderly. The Simpsons‟ involvement with Grampa cannot be certainly described as deep, active or day-to-day. Grampa Simpson is seldom invited to The Simpsons‟ house and if he unexpectedly turns up, Homer often shuts the blinds or pretends he is not at home. Likewise, the family visits Grampa infrequently and if they do, they visit him because they have to and they do not enjoy the outing. This poor relationship between Grampa Simpson and the rest of the Simpson family is effectively illustrated in the seventeenth episode of the second season called “Old Money”. The episode opens with the Simpson family dropping Grampa off at the retirement home after another miserable Sunday outing with him. The Simpsons are so happy their Sunday visit is over that they even do not let Grampa finish his goodbye and quickly drive away. Bart and Lisa discuss Grampa in the car. BART: You know, Grampa kinda smells like that trunk in the garage with the bottom‟s all wet. LISA: No, he smells more like a photo lab. HOMER: Stop it, both of you! Grampa smells like a regular old man, which is more like a hallway in a hospital. MARGE: Homer, that‟s terrible. We should be teaching the children to treasure the elderly. You know, we‟ll be old someday. HOMER: My, God. You‟re right, Marge. You kids wouldn‟t put me in home like I did to my dad, would you? BART: [considering the idea] Well… (7F17, 1:37 – 2:00)

The scene skillfully illustrates the aforementioned Spillman‟s and Pezzin‟s findings about the notable decline in informal, family care and the increase of formal, institutional care. And, perhaps more notably, it satirizes the practice of putting the elderly into retirement homes and deliberately neglecting them. The scene also points out above discussed decline in family commitment to caregiving; although Homer realizes that living in retirement home is an unpleasant way of aging and he would hate to spend the end of his life there, he does not scruple to put his own father in such an institution. As the episode proceeds, the relationship between Homer and Grampa deteriorates because Grampa blames Homer for making him go on a discount safari and thus missing the last moments with his dying sweetheart. Grampa‟s statement: “I have no son.” (7F17, 9:32 – 9:34) serves as a turning point in the story since only after hearing this heartless sentence Homer realizes how much he actually cares for his father

21 and he changes from being a neglectful son to being a caring and helpful one. Not surprisingly, at the end of the episode a genuine reconciliation between Homer and Grampa is achieved and the whole family stops perceiving their grandfather as a burden to carry. Moreover, they finally start to appreciate his wisdom and care. Thus Marge‟s wish expressed in the above cited scene is met since the children learnt how important it is to reassure the elderly. The episode “Old Money” undergoes the same development as the episodes of The Simpsons analyzed in chapter 4.1; biting satire is used during the course of the episode yet the episodes finishes in a conciliatory tone and the characters learn their lesson. Matheson argues that the show‟s frequent use of happy family endings indicates that beneath the surface irony of The Simpsons one will find a strong commitment to family values. (Matheson, 2011, 121–122) The episode “Old Money” certainly confirms his notion. While at the beginning of the episode Grampa was neglected by his family, by the end of the episode the Simpsons realized his importance. As regards the use of satire in this episode, the following can be stated. According to Peck and Coyle, satire mocks folly of society with the purpose to correct conduct. (Peck, Coyle, 2002, 170) The episode “Old Money” thus certainly fulfills criteria for satirical work according the aforementioned authors since it shows the viewers desirable change in their conduct. The moral of the story is, however, achieved by gentle mockery rather than bitter criticism, which again indicates employment of Horatian satire.

5.1.1 STEREOTYPES ABOUT THE ELDERLY IN THE SIMPSONS

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, the character of Grampa Simpson embodies various negative stereotypes about the elderly and The Simpsons frequently uses his character to comment on these stereotypes. The stereotypes he embodies are not usually discussed in one episode; instead, the show uses episodic appearances of his character throughout the episodes to comment on various stereotypes. As Tan claims in Myths of Aging, one of the common negative stereotypes about the elderly is that all old people are incompetent and there is a lack of productivity with them. (Tan, 2011) Similarly, Scheve and Venzon describe a usual stereotype about older people who are considered to be contributing little to society: “older adults are treated like antique autos: they can handle a Sunday drive in the park, but you wouldn‟t try to

22 get any real work out of them. In other words, they were useful in their times, but no longer.” (Scheve, Venzon, 2010) This prevailing attitude is effectively illustrated by a dialogue between Homer and Grampa Simpson in the episode “Homer the Vigilante”. In this episode, Springfield is shocked by a crime wave caused by a mysterious burglar. The police are ineffective, so Homer decides to found a neighborhood watch. Grampa Simpson offers his help but it is refused by his son. GRAMPA: I‟ll join! I‟m filled with piss and vinegar. At first, I was just filled with vinegar. HOMER: Hm… Sorry, dad. You‟re too old. GRAMPA: Too old? Why, that just means I have experience. Who chased the Irish out of Springfield village in aught four? Me, that‟s who! HOMER: Oh, dad. You‟ve done a lot of great things, but you‟re a very old man now, and old people are useless. [tickles Grampa] Aren‟t they? Aren‟t they? Huh? Yes, they are . Yes, they are! Tee hee – GRAMPA: Stop it! That‟s a form of abuse. (1F09, 8:01 – 8:40)

Not only does the scene follow the aforementioned stereotype of a useless, incompetent senior citizen but it also portrays the manner in which the elderly are tended to be talked to. As stated by Walker, researchers have documented the propensity of younger individuals to use “baby-talk”, i.e. exaggerated tone, simplified speech and high pitch, when speaking to older adults. (Walker, 2010) Homer‟s “Aren‟t they?” pronounced in a high-pitched voice therefore skillfully satirizes tendency toward using baby-talk while addressing the elderly. As the episode proceeds, Homer and his neighbor watch are not successful in catching the burglar. What is more, they cause a significant rise in criminal activity in Springfield. However, the burglar is eventually caught at the end of the episode. Not surprisingly, it is Grampa Simpson who discovers the identity of the mysterious burglar, who is, in fact, one of his friends from retirement home. GRAMPA: So you see, old people aren‟t so useless after all. Malloy‟s old and he outsmarted the lot of you. And I‟m even older and I outsmarted him. Ah ha ha ha. MOE: Shut up! GRAMPA: I‟ve had my moment. (1F09, 17:45 – 18:00)

The interpretation of the ending of the episodes it not as clear as it looks like, since the denouement sends the viewers a mixed message. On the one hand, Grampa Simpson

23 proves that old people are beneficial for society and their age does not stand only for limitations but also for experiences. On the other hand, Moe‟s line “Shut up!” reflects prevailing negative attitude toward the elderly, no matter how hard they try and what success they achieve. Walker suggests that the elderly are often attributed a demeaning set of characteristics: senile, sickly, unattractive, greedy, cranky and child-like. (Walker, 2011) Similarly, Scheve and Venzon state that the elderly are often portrayed as feeble, forgetful, cranky and confused. (Scheve, Venzon, 2010) The Simpsons also portrays Grampa Simpson in a similar way. Grampa Simpson is confused and forgetful: “My son is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.” (3G04) Grampa is feeble: “Where‟s the remote? [the remote is right in front of him on the floor] Oh, it might as well be in China.” (9F15) Above all, Grampa is cranky: “I‟m an old man. I hate everything but Matlock.” (9F18) In fact, Grampa is infamous for his crankiness. In the episode “Scorpion‟s Tale”, he is ejected from the retirement home because he is rude to the staff and other senior citizens. Not surprisingly, he is accommodated at the Simpson‟s house and the family members take turns having him as a roommate. No one can escape from his irritable mood. GRAMPA: Nose in a funny book, how rude. Have you never heard of conversation? BART: Fine. [puts down the comic] How‟s it going? GRAMPA: Terrible. I‟ve got that new roommate and he won‟t stop yapping. [Grampa is moved to Homer‟s and Marge‟s bedroom.] GRAMPA: Hey, you call that making love? MARGE: Homer, I told you he wouldn‟t sleep through it. GRAMPA: In my day, women don‟t make a sound. (NABF08, 6:18 – 7:20)

During the course of the episode, Grampa and other senior citizens from Springfield start taking a drug which makes them happy and positive about their lives. However, at the end of the episode, Grampa realizes that they have to go back to being cranky. In his speech to other senior citizens he explains the reasons. GRAMPA: Together we survived the Depression and the Second World War. We put man on the moon. In fact, the only mistake our generation made was creating that generation [points at Homer and his friends who are dancing half-naked around Homer‟s car on fire]. If we wanna set them straight, it‟s gonna take all crankiness we can muster. So put down those pills and upside down them smiles. (NABF08,19:26– 19:49) 24

Undoubtedly, while portraying the senior citizens of Springfield, the episode uses some of the negative stereotypes about the elderly. Above all, it places considerable emphasis on exploiting the common stereotype of their irritable mood and crankiness. However, it can be stated that the very same episode does not reinforce this stereotype. Beard clarifies these seemingly opposing ideas stating that The Simpsons undermines stereotypes through an interrogatory utilization of these same stereotypes with subversively ironic intent. (Beard, 2004, 288) In other words, the cartoon uses common stereotypes in order to destabilize them. The creators of The Simpsons therefore assume that the viewers of the show will be educated enough to understand their intention and will interpret the message of the cartoon correctly.

5.2 SENIOR CITIZENS IN SOUTH PARK

Similarly to other issues which are treated differently by The Simpsons and South Park, the issue of the elderly is also commented on in a different manner. As stated above, senior citizens do not occur on South Park as frequently as on The Simpsons. One of the main reasons is, of course, different focus on both cartoons – The Simpsons being more a family comedy, which secures more frequent appearance of Grampa Simpson, i.e. prototypical senior citizen, on the show. However, South Park has also incorporated the issue of the elderly and their position in society into its episodes yet it comments on slightly different problems and exploits distinct stereotypes. The most notable example of the show‟s different approach toward the issue of the elderly is perhaps the episode “Grey Dawn”, the tenth episode of the seventh season, which revolves its plot around a very fragile issue – the ability of the elderly to continue to drive. According to Parker and Stove, the creators of South Park, the inspiration for the episode came from an actual incident from 2003, in which an elderly citizen accidentally killed ten people when his car roared through a farmers market in Santa Monica, which caused a national debate over regulatory restrictions over driver‟s licenses for the elderly. (Parker, Stove, DVD commentary) The practice of commenting on contemporary issues is typical for South Park, since its episode takes only one week

25 to create. This allows the cartoon to reflect the mood in American society and contribute to national debates. As stated by Grabowksi and Morrisey, the motor vehicle death rate for older drivers continues to be an area of concern for policymakers since older drivers have higher crash rates per vehicle-mile traveled than all other age groups, except males aged 16 to 24. The risk factors for this high number are: deterioration in vision, a decline in cognition, and a loss of psychomotor skills. (Grabowski, Morrisey, 2001, 517-521) In “Grey Dawn”, South Park starkly illustrates the above mentioned problem and graphically portrays older drivers affected by all three risk factors. The episode “Grey Dawn” not only comments on the issue of older drivers but it also caricatures perception of the elderly by the rest of society. Likewise The Simpsons, South Park also exploits various negative stereotypes about the elderly. The following scene takes place in a community centre where the senior citizens of South Park hold a meeting to discuss authorities‟ decision to take their driver‟s licenses away. SENIOR 1: Seniors of South Park, I don‟t know about you, but I‟m mad as hell. SENIORS: Yeah! SENIOR 2: I‟m sick of having my mental condition coming to question. SENIOR 3: We need to everyone know we are pissed off! And we‟re not gonna take it anymore. SENIOR 1: Now, can anybody remember what we are pissed off about? [silence] I remember we‟re pissed off about something. That‟s why we‟re having this meeting… SENIOR 4: Oh, was it the kids skateboarding on the sidewalks? No… SENIOR 5: Oh, I remember, they‟re gonna take our licenses away. SENIOR 1: That‟s right! And I‟m mad as hell. SENIOR 2: I‟m sick of having my mental condition coming to question. SENIOR 1: So, now, what are we gonna do about it? […] I think we should have a senior citizens meeting. Get all the seniors to community centre and unite. SENIOR 6: Wait, I think we‟re having that meeting right now. SENIOR 1: Right, this is the meeting. SENIOR 7: To get the damn kids to stop skateboarding on the sidewalks. SENIORS: Yeah! Right! (710, 4:00 – 5:27)

This scene puts the elderly in a very bad light because it portrays them as forgetful and confused. Moreover, it generalizes about senior citizens describing them as a rather incompetent group of persons thus implying that all senior citizens must suffer from mental deterioration. All in all, the scene follows some of the negative stereotypes mentioned in Myths of Aging. Specifically, the questionable assumption that vast

26 majority of the elderly are senile, suffer from memory lost and disorientation. (Tan, 2011) As the episode proceeds, demonization of the elderly as a group continues. All senior citizens of South Park are asked to hand in their driver‟s licenses and they are prohibited from driving. Naturally, they strongly oppose this decision and try to argue with a DMV clerk.

SENIOR 1: It ain‟t right what you‟re doing. I never had an accident in my life. SENIOR 2: That‟s right. You shouldn‟t punish all of us. CLERK: We‟re sorry, but this is the only way to be sure. Next, please. SENIOR 3: But how am I suppose do get to the grocery store or to the pharmacy to buy medicine? CLERK: Maybe, you should be in a nursing home, eh? SENIOR 4: Some of us would rather die! CLERK: Well, we can certainly help you with that too. (710, 9:50 – 10:14)

In Myths of Aging Tan states that the most commonly held stereotype of old age is the one which claims that all old people are the same. (Tan, 2011) Similarly, Lockhart and Giles-Sims declare that people are unaware of the heterogeneity of the elderly and tend to overlook that although there are elderly people who are vulnerable and have delicate health, there are also many elderly people in good health; vibrant rather than vulnerable. (Lockhart, Giles-Sims, 2005, 426) The above cited scene therefore satirizes general perception of the elderly as a homogeneous group whose all members must inevitably be the same; in this context – equally incapable to drive. The scene also deals with possible problems connected with suspending senior citizens‟ licenses. As stated in Grabowski and Morrisey, when licenses are denied, older individuals face the burden of restricted mobility, which may prohibit the performance of routine daily activities. (Grabowski, Morrisey, 2001, 539) The attitude of a DMV clerk, who represents public authorities, thus bitterly satirize a lack of concern for this issue and also a false belief that all elderly people belong to retirement homes where they will be looked after. Although their licenses were taken away, some of the South Park senior citizens did not stop driving. Grampa Marsh, Stan‟s grandfather, is one of them, and it does not take long until he is arrested. His son, Randy Marsh, comes to the prison to bail him out and he starts to admonish him for causing problems.

RANDY: Well, good job, dad. Look at you now. GRAMPA: God damn it! Don‟t you lecture me, you son of a bitch. RANDY: You just had to be so damn stubborn, didn‟t you? GRAMPA: No my son is gonna talk to me like I‟m twelve. RANDY: We‟re not treating you like children, dad. Now, I think you owe Mr. police officer an apology. Who needs to apologize, hm? Who‟s a sorry sorry? (710, 11:57 – 12:24)

This dialogue aptly illustrates the manner in which younger individuals tend to talk to seniors - high-pitched, exaggerated “baby-talk” defined in chapter 5.1. Similarly to Homer in The Simpsons, Randy Marsh also talks to his father as if he was a child. This scene thus playfully satirizes the popular-culture conception of retirement as a second childhood described by Lockhart and Giles-Sims. (Lockhart, Giles-Sims, 2005, 429) In addition, it caricatures the image of the elderly as child-like and not able to understand information they are given. Since the seniors of South Park feel discriminated against, they ask the AARP 1 for help. When the AAPR comes, its members soon take control over the town using weapons, and they plan to wipe out everybody younger than 65. The adults are again unable to solve the problem because “the seniors get up so early in the morning and they get everything done before everyone else is even awake”. (710, 17:11 – 17:16) In the end, the boys manage to handle the situation and everything goes back to normal. Randy Marsh summarizes in the final scene:

RANDY: Well, I think he learnt his lesson. Don‟t you feel silly now, dad? I think somebody owes us all an apology. Yes he does! STAN: Oh, stop it, dad! This is partly your fault. All Grampa wants is not to be talked to like a child. Half what he was angry about was not what you‟re doing but how you‟re doing it. Grampa, you should be proud that you made it through life to be a senior but you should also realize that when you get behind the wheel you‟re a killing machine. RANDY: Well, I think this has been a real learning experience for the Marsh family. People died but we all grew a little. Let‟s just go home. GRAMPA: Sure, I‟ll drive. RANDY: Hahaha, that‟s our Grampa. STAN: Dude, I hate my family. (710, 20:55 – 21:27)

The ending is a crucial part of the entire episode because it helps viewers to accurately interpret the message of the episode. First and perhaps most important

1 the American Association of Retired Persons 28 finding is that although the episode “Grey Dawn” exposes the issues of the elderly and stereotypes about them to mockery and ridicule, it makes no attempt to correct the situation. Coleman agrees stating that although South Park satirizes the hypocritical and ridicules prevailing stereotypes, it does not provide solution‟s to society problems or the keys to social harmony. (Coleman, 2008, 141) The ending of “Grey Dawn” certainly supports this hypothesis because the seemingly heart-warming family moment in the final scene is clearly a clever parody of happy ends typical for family comedies, and it neither promotes any moral agenda nor offers a solution to the issue of elderly drivers. Instead, it satirizes the incompetence of adults and blames them for reinforcing negative stereotypes about the elderly. Secondly, the ending of the episode amply demonstrates a crucial difference between The Simpsons and South Park. As stated in chapter 4 of this thesis, The Simpsons tends to appreciate family values and the denouements of the episodes very often display this strong tendency. In contrast, the final scene of “Grey Dawn” does not recognize the importance of family, and it serves as a vivid example of a rather harsh and bitter approach to dealing with relationships within a family in South Park.

To summarize, both The Simpsons and South Park comment on the issue of stereotyping the elderly and the relationship of American society toward them. However, both shows adopt a different approach to this fragile issue. First of all, The Simpsons devotes more attention to this issue because it is predominantly a family comedy and, therefore, the character of Grampa occurs in its episodes more frequently than any other older character in South Park. His character is also the epitome of a substantial number of stereotypes about the elderly. In contrast, South Park does not exploit the character of Grampa Marsh to a great extent and when the cartoon comments on the issue of the elderly, it uses “anonymous” seniors from the town of South Park. Secondly, unlike The Simpsons, South Park does not provide the viewers with moral lessons and/or happy endings which would promote family values. When the final scenes of “Homer the Vigilante” and “Grey Dawn” are compared, it is apparent that Grampa Simpson earned his family‟s recognition and family ties within the Simpson family were strengthened. In contrast, nothing similar happened in South Park.

Thirdly, while The Simpsons does not fail to move to the corrective function of satire, South Park very often only points the problem out and does not suggest any solution. This difference is again apparent in the final scenes of the aforementioned episodes. Whereas the viewers of “Homer the Vigilante” learn their lesson and realize that they should rethink their attitude toward the elderly, the viewers of “Grey Dawn” might feel somewhat confused about the message the episode conveys, especially due to the employment of parody in the very end of the episode. Both cartoons, however, do have something in common. They frequently depict the elderly as cranky, senile, confused or feeble; in other words they both use negative stereotypes of the elderly. Yet the purpose of this practice is not to reinforce these stereotypes but to destabilize them and allow the viewer to question their own stereotypical views. Therefore, The Simpsons and South Park assume that their viewers are educated enough to interpret the satire in the correct way. As regards the types of satire used, The Simpsons uses mild, light-hearted humor of Horatian satire to depict Grampa Simpson whose follies evoke a wry smile rather than moral indignation. However, South Park uses savage scorn and ridicule of Juvenalian satire to portray senior citizens of South Park who are incapable to drive but they still drive their cars and kill other people in town. Both cartoons also satirize adults suggesting that they are partly to blame for negative perception of the elderly and for reinforcing the stereotypes about them. The cartoons predominantly satirize a lack of empathy and respect in adults‟ behavior toward the elderly. However, unlike The Simpsons that criticizes adults with a smile and gentle irony, South Park uses harsher tone and a greater deal of sarcasm, which again indicates the employment of Juvenalian satire.

6. COMMUNITY RELATIONS IN THE SIMPSONS AND SOUTH PARK

Although The Simpsons and South Park provide the viewers with commentaries on the issue of local community, it is rather complicated to analyze these commentaries because the issue of community relations is not frequently the focus of the plots of the episodes. What is more, relationships among the members of communities in Springfield and South Park are very often only implied by the creators of the shows and one has to watch a substantial number of episodes to be able to provide relevant insights. However, it is not difficult to recognize the type of community in which The Simpsons and South Park are set – a relatively close-knit community of an American small town. The Simpson family lives in Springfield, a small town somewhere in America, whose exact location has not been ever revealed. The creator of The Simpsons, Matt Groening, states that he chose this name because it is so common that everyone can identify their town with it and, thus, the name represents “an average American small town”. (Anderson, DVD commentary) In contrast, the location of South Park is known, although the town itself is also fictional. The town of South Park is situated near Denver, Colorado, in the Rocky Mountains. Although it is not that populous as Springfield, South Park also represents “an average American small town.” Both Springfield and South Park portray a small, close-knit community and the relations within this community. The cartoons very often comment on the relationships of local authorities toward the people, community attachment and community spirit. Since The Simpsons and South Park have already been classified as satirical works, it is not surprising that their portrayal of community is often ironic and somewhat negative. However, the cartoons also not infrequently praise small communities especially in comparison with big city life. The extent to which the cartoons celebrate small communities rather than condemn them is the subject of the following analysis.

Fisher claims that most Americans esteem the local community; especially the small one is glorified because it is believed that it preserves morality and the best people are to be found in it. (Fisher, 1992, 79 – 80) According to this popular belief, the town of Springfield and the town of South Park should be an ideal place to live. However, the

31 cartoons very often have their doubts about moral standards and relationships in Springfield and South Park community. Accordingly, some authors are fairly pessimistic about local communities of these two towns. Halwani, for instance, blames Homer‟s lack of morality on Springfield: “He grew up mostly in Springfield, a town whose inhabitants have serious and severe character flaws, ranging from stupidity to malice. (Halwani, 2001, 16) It is obvious that Halwani disagrees with the aforementioned belief that a small local community guarantees higher moral standards and “better people”. Further, the results of a Gallup poll show that residents of smaller towns are more likely to be attached and loyal to their communities than residents of big cities. (Brown, Torongo, 2009) Another Gallup study specifies that social offerings and openness are most likely elements to affect residents‟ attachment to community. (Morales, 2010) As regards Springfield and South Park, a certain level of attachment of their residents to the local community certainly cannot be denied. The question is what are the causes for this attachment; whether some of the factors mentioned above or some different, less noble reasons. It seems that the community in South Park unites only when its members feel in danger. For instance, members of South Park community started to cooperate only when they wanted to banish all rich African-Americans from the town since they were afraid that “it won‟t be long before they drive all of us poor under-achieving people out of town with inflated real estate costs.” (512, 9:55 – 10:02) Another reason which lifts community spirit and develops community attachment is the case of lynching. People of South Park very often take the law into their own hands and not infrequently treat one of their members harshly. For example, in the episode “Spontaneous Combustion” Randy Marsh, a recognized South Park geologist, is first admired for his solution to a problem of spontaneous combustion and later blamed for a heat wave in the town and, consequently, stoned by an angry mob which consists of his friends and neighbors. (302) Community relations in Springfield are also very often far from being ideal. Similarly to South Park, the community spirit of the residents of Springfield is frequently raised exclusively by opportunity to form a violent mob. Not surprisingly, it is usually Homer or Bart who are the reasons for such an action. For instance, in the well-known episode “The Telltale Head” Bart saws off the head of the statue of beloved

32 founder of Springfield, Jebediah Springfield. Consequently, Bart is chased by an angry torch-wielding mob. In his defense, he tries to persuade his neighbors that he has actually brought the town closer together. BART: It wasn‟t only after I‟d removed the head that we realized we were taking our heritage for granted. That‟s a crime too. […] KRUSTY: Somehow, I don‟t feel like killing anymore. (7G07, 19:03-19:10) The crowd is touched and unlike in South Park, the people of Springfield realize how important their community is. However, not always do the residents of Springfield act in a considerate manner, respect other members of their small community and acknowledge its importance. This inconsiderate behavior can be illustrated in the episode “Midnight Towboy”, in which a lack of politeness among community members causes parking chaos in the town. At the end of the episode, Lenny intentionally parks his car in the handicapped area, which angers handicapped Mrs. Skinner and she deliberately parks sideways across three parking spaces. Rainier Wolfcastle then parks his Hummer on the top of her car and the parking chaos spreads into the whole town and, consequently, everyone is angry. (JABF21) As stated above, small communities are also glorified for their supposed higher moral standards. This assumption is not entirely true in the case of both Springfield and South Park. As stated in Homer and Aristotle, living in a town such as Springfield is not conducive to a good life. (Halwani, 2001, 21) Although Halwani‟s judgment might be too harsh and too generalizing, the truth is that some members of Springfield community do not score high on morality. Most common personality flaw seems to be hypocrisy. Besides naturally hypocrite Mayor Quimby, consider, for instance, reverend‟s Lovejoy‟s wife, Helen, who is well known for her catchphrase “Will someone please think of the children?” The problem is that she uses her catchphrase too often and for the purposes which are completely unrelated with children. HOMER: Mr. Mayor, I hate to break it to you, but this town is infested with bears. HELEN: Think of the children! [Bear patrol is created but it costs more tax money. One week later, residents are back and they complain again.] HOMER: Down with taxes! Down with taxes! HELEN: Will someone please think of the children? (3F20, 14:54-15:03)

Moreover, Helen is not a kind-hearted reverend‟s wife who would set the example for the others. She is a terrible gossip and, with a bright smile on her face, she often plots against other members of the community. As regards South Park, high moral standards are also difficult to find among the members of this community. One of the reasons is the fact that almost all adults are presented as corrupted and incompetent. Weinstock agrees saying that “all the adults seem dysfunctional and to varying degrees attempt to manipulate or use their children to achieve their own ends.” (Weinstock, 2008, 85) Worse yet, especially official representatives of the community act in a hypocrite and ridiculous manner. For instance, Mayor McDaniels would do anything not to angry her voters whom she secretly despises anyway. When there are protesters in front of the town hall again, she is supposed to make an official announcement. MAYOR: Boy, they‟re really pissed. RANDY: Well, they‟re right. We should have known that all that methane could affect the atmosphere. MAYOR: Well, let‟s go talk to them. Stick by me. (302, 16:20 – 16:25) After that they together open the town hall‟s door and Mayor McDaniels pushes Randy out, quickly closes the door and hides inside while Randy has to face an angry mob on his own. The image of both towns is so far different from the popular and maybe somewhat idealized view of a small local community described at the beginning of the chapter. Neither Springfield nor South Park is a perfect community and its members express their attachment to it only when it suits them. Moreover, the relations within the community are in both cases often hypocritical. However, residents of Springfield are content with the place where they live and would not move away. In The Simpsons several episodes revolve their plot around the problems of the Simpson family that moves to a different town. For instance, in “You Only Move Twice”, Homer gets a better job and the whole family moves to Cypress Creek. Although they have a nicer house there and Homer is finally successful at work, they miss Springfield and, at the end of the episode, they move back. (3F23) Cantor believes that the Simpsons and Springfield community are inseparable because it is the traditional American small town, neighborhood school and approachable political institutions, which secure that the dysfunctional Simpson family functions. (Cantor, 2001, 173)

As regards South Park, the boys do not seem so attached to the South Park community. This fact is not surprising because the boys recognize and understand the character flaws of their parents and other adults in the town. Their relationship toward their fellow residents is nicely summarized in Stan‟s sentence, which he utters at the end of the episode “I‟m a Little Bit Country” after an evenly split town into pro-war and anti-war half pathetically celebrates reaching a conclusion with a song. Disgusted with the amount of hypocrisy and stupidity Stan says: “I hate this town. I really, really do.” (704, 19:43-19:46) It can be concluded that both cartoons refuse to see small local communities with romanticized nostalgia as many Americans do. Neither The Simpsons nor South Park presents their communities as ideal. In fact, the cartoons satirize a popular belief of a peaceful tiny American town whose residents have higher moral qualities and friendly relationships among one another. The cartoons often see the relationships among community members as hypocritical, superficial and insincere. Both shows also bitterly satirize the reasons such as lynching, meaningless protesting or discriminating against newcomers as the only reasons for raising community spirit. On the other hand, The Simpsons still values the sense of community and acknowledges its importance when it presents the Simpson family unwilling to move somewhere else. In contrast, South Park is as usual more radical and it does not seem to appreciate community relations in the town of South Park at all. In addition, the cartoon mocks small communities and their members in a harsher way, which would again confirm its more sarcastic nature.

7. CONCLUSION

Undoubtedly, both The Simpsons and South Park have become a part of contemporary culture especially due to their immense success and worldwide popularity. Meanwhile both shows remain highly discussed and controversial adult-oriented cartoons due to their satirical nature, crude humor and amusing jokes. General public and academics alike very often underestimate both cartoons because they do not believe that there is something deeper behind toilet humor and funny jokes. However, The Simpsons and South Park do have deeper meaning because they frequently comment on America‟s contemporary issues and encourage further discussion about these issues. Another contribution of these cartoons is the fact that they provide non-American watchers with profound and useful insights into American culture. The Simpsons and South Park have commented on a substantial number of contentious issues which affect American society throughout their seasons. The issue of interpersonal relationships, which was the focus of this thesis, ranks among the most frequently discussed ones. As apparent from the analyses, both cartoons approach the discussed topics in a different manner. As regards The Simpsons, the cartoon generally tends to use light-hearted humor and urbane satire while commenting on family ties and community relations. Above all, a strong tendency toward acknowledging family values can be detected in this show. In contrast, South Park generally expresses fierce criticism of interpersonal relationships of various kinds through the employment of savage satire and it is often very dark in tone. Moreover, South Park frequently undermines and mocks family values rather than praises them. These differences only support the opinion that although the cartoons seem similar, they are, in fact, completely different. To conclude, although critics of both cartoons frequently accuse them of employing juvenile vulgarity and coarse language, I believe the thesis proves that both The Simpsons and South Park stand for more than toilet humor and slurs. I insist that these cartoons convey important messages, which are hidden behind amusing jokes and offensive language. One only has to look through great deals of ironic and slapstick humor to decode them. The Simpsons and South Park then serve as an interesting way to understand American culture.

8. Resumé

Tato závěrečná práce analyzuje vybrané epizody dvou populárních amerických kreslených seriálů pro dospělé - South Parku a Simpsnových. V úvodních kapitolách práce jsou oba seriály stručně charakterizovány a také definovány pojmy jako parodie a satira. V dalších kapitolách se práce zaměřuje na rozdílné vyobrazení mezilidských vztahů ve vybraných epizodách obou kreslených seriálů. Pomocí analýzy těchto epizod jednotlivé kapitoly porovnávají rozdílné vyobrazení vztahů v rodině, konkrétně vztahů mezi rodiči a dětmi a vztahů seniorů a jejich rodin, a vztahů v místním společenství. V závěru práce zjišťujeme, že seriál South Park je ve vyobrazení mezilidských vztahů skeptičtější a zároveň volí k satiře nejrůznějších rodinných a společenských problémů drsnější humor, nežli seriál Simpsnovi.

This thesis analyzes selected episodes of two popular American adult-oriented cartoons – South Park and The Simpsons. Both cartoons are briefly characterized at the beginning of the thesis. In addition, the definitions of crucial terms such as parody and satire are provided. Next chapters focus on similarities and differences in depiction of interpersonal relationships in selected episodes of both cartoons. The chapters analyze these episodes and comment on different images of parent-child relationships, attitudes to senior citizens and community relations in both cartoons. The conclusion of the thesis finds out that South Park uses harsher and darker satire while commenting on the issue of interpersonal relationships.

9. BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRINTED MATERIALS

ALBERTI, John. Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture. 1st ed. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 2004. 343 s. ISBN 0-8143-2849-0.

BALDICK, Chris. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Literary Terms. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001. 280 s. ISBN 0-19-280118-X.

BEARD, Duncan Stuart. Local Satire with a Global Reach: Ethnic Stereotyping and Cross-Cultural Conflicts in The Simpsons. In Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture. Alberti (ed.), Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 2004. s. 273-291. ISBN 0-8143-2849-0.

BECKER, Matt. I Hate Hippies: South Park and the Politics of Generation X. In Taking South Park Seriously. Weinstock (ed.), Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2008. s. 145-164. ISBN 978-0-7914-7566-9.

CANTOR, Paul A. The Simpsons: Atomistic Politics and the Nuclear Family. In The Simpsons and Philosophy: the D’oh! of Homer. Irwin et al.(ed.), Chicago, Illinois: Open Court, 2001. s. 160-178. ISBN 0-8126-9433-3.

COLEMAN, Lindsay. Shopping at J-Mart with the Williams: Race, Ethnicity and Belonging in South Park. In Taking South Park Seriously. Weinstock (ed.), Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2008. s. 131-144. ISBN 978-0-7914- 7566-9.

CRANDALL, J; DATESMAN, M.K,; KEARNY, E. The American Ways: an Introduction to American Culture. 2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Prentice Hall Regents, 1997, 276 s. ISBN 0-13-342015-9.

CUDDON, J.A. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. 1st ed. London: Penguin Books, 1979. 761 s. ISBN 0-14-051363-9.

FISHER, Claude. Ambivalent Communities: How Americans Understand Their Localities. In America at Century’s End. Wolfe (ed.), Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1992. s. 79-92. ISBN 0-520-07477-7.

GERSON, Kathleen. Coping with Commitment: Dilemmas and Conflicts of Family Life. In America at Century’s End. Wolfe (ed.), Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1992. s. 35-57. ISBN 0-520-07477-7.

GRABOWSKI, David; MORRISEY, Michael. The Effect of State Regulations on Motor Vehicle Fatalities for Younger and Older Drivers: A Review and Analysis. The Milbank Quarterly. Winter 2001, Vol. 79, No. 4, s. 517-545.

GRAY, Martin. A Dictionary of Literary Terms. 2nd rev. ed. Beirut: York Press, 1992. 324 s. ISBN 0-582-08037-1.

HALWANI, Raja. Homer and Aristotle. In The Simpsons and Philosophy: the D’oh! of Homer. Irwin et al.(ed.), Chicago, Illinois: Open Court, 2001. s. 7-24. ISBN 0-8126- 9433-3.

HIGHET, Gilbert. The Anatomy of Satire. 1st ed. New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1962. 301 s.

IRWIN, William; CONARD, Mark T.; SKOBLE Aeon J. The Simpsons and Philosophy: The D’oh! of Homer. Chicago, Illinois: Open Court, 2001, 303 s. ISBN 0- 8126-9433-3.

LOCKHART, Charles; GILES-SIMS, Jean. Variation in Elderly Friendliness across the U.S. States: Operationalization, Rankings, and Selected Consequences. Publius. Summer 2005, Vol. 35, No. 3, s. 425-447.

MATHESON, Carl. The Simpsons, Hyper-Irony, and the Meaning of Life. In The Simpsons and Philosophy: the D’oh! of Homer. Irwin et al.(ed.), Chicago, Illinois: Open Court, 2001. s. 108-125. ISBN 0-8126-9433-3.

MAYOR, M. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 5th ed. Harlow: Longman, 2009. 2081 s. ISBN 978-1-4082-1533-3.

MULLEN, Megan. The Simpsons and Hanna-Barbera‟s Animation Legacy. In Leaving Springfield: The Simpsons and the Possibility of Oppositional Culture. Alberti (ed.), Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press, 2004. s. 63-84. ISBN 0-8143-2849-0.

PECK, John; COYLE, Martin. Literary Terms and Criticism. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002. 241 s. ISBN 0-333-96258-3.

SCANLAN, Stephen; FEINBERG, Seth. The Cartoon Society: Using The Simpsons to Teach and Learn Sociology. Teaching Sociology, April 2000, Vol. 28, s. 127-139.

SCHOENI, Robert. Reassessing the Decline in Parent-Child Old-Age Coresidence During the Twentieth Century. Demography. August 1998, Vol. 35, No. 3, s. 307-313.

SPILLMAN, Brenda; PEZZIN, Liliana. Potential and Active Family Caregivers: Changing Networks and the “Sandwich Generation”. The Milbank Quarterly. Autumn 2000, Vol. 78, No. 3, s. 347-374.

WALTER, Elizabeth. Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 3rd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008. 2564s. ISBN 978-0521-858045.

WEINSTOCK, Jeffrey Andrew. “Simpsons Did It”: South Park as Differential Signifier. In Taking South Park Seriously. Weinstock (ed.), Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2008. s. 79-98. ISBN 978-0-7914-7566-9.

WEINSTOCK, Jeffrey, Andrew. Taking South Park Seriously. 1st ed. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press, 2008. 253 s. ISBN 978-0-7914-7566-9.

WOLFE, Alan. America at Century’s End. 1st ed. Los Angeles, California: University of California Press, 1992. 577 s. ISBN 0-520-07477-7.

INTERNET SOURCES

Administration on Aging [online]. c2012 [cit. 2012-06-13]. Aging Statistics. Dostupné z WWW: < http://www.aoa.gov/AoARoot/Aging_Statistics/index.aspx>.

BROWN, Ian; TORONGO, Bob. Gallup [online]. September 29, 2009. [cit.2012-06- 26]. Smaller U.S. Cities Generate More Loyalty and Passion. Dostupné z WWW: < http://www.gallup.com/poll/123218/Smaller-Cities-Generate-Loyalty-Passion.aspx>.

MENDES, Elizabeth. Gallup [online]. July 28, 2011 [cit. 2012-06-13]. Most Caregivers Look after Elderly Parent. Dostupné z WWW: < http://www.gallup.com/poll/148682/Caregivers-Look-Elderly-Parent-Invest-Lot- Time.aspx>.

MORALES, Lymari. Gallup [online]. November 15, 2010. [cit. 2012-06-13]. Social Offerings, Openness Key to Community Attachment. Dostupné z WWW: < http://www.gallup.com/poll/144476/Social-Offerings-Openness-Key-Community- Attachment.aspx>.

SCHEVE, Tom; VENZON, Christine. Discovery Fit and Health. c2012 [cit. 2012-06- 20] Ten Stereotypes about Aging. Dostupné z WWW: < http://health.howstuffworks.com/wellness/aging/aging-process/5-stereotypes-about- aging1.htm>.

TAN, Simon. Psychology Today [online]. January 20, 2011. [cit. 2012-06-20]. Myths of Aging. . Dostupné z WWW: .

The Simpsons [online]. c2012 [cit. 2012-06-17]. Characters – Abraham Simpson. Dostupné z WWW: < http://www.thesimpsons.com/#/characters >.

WALKER, Jessica. Aging Watch [online]. October 30, 2010. [cit. 2012-06-22]. Elder Stereotypes in Media & Popular Culture. Dostupné z WWW: .

OTHER SOURCES

ANDERSON, Mike. Audio Director‟s Commentary. 2005. [DVD]. 20th Century Fox.

PARKER Trey, STONE Matt. South Park: The Complete First Season: "Mr. Hankey, the Christmas Poo". 2003 (Audio commentary). [DVD]. Comedy Central.

EPISODES CITED

SOUTH PARK

“Cartman‟s Mum is Still a Dirty Slut.” Production number 202. Original airdate 1998- 02-25. Writers: Trey Parker, David Goodman.

“Death.” Production number 106. Original airdate 1997-09-17. Writers: Trey Parker, Matt Stone.

“Gnomes.” Production number 710. Original airdate 1998-12-16. Writer: Trey Parker.

“Grey Dawn.” Production number 217. Original airdate 2003-11-05. Writers: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Pam Brady.

“Here Comes the Neighborhood.” Production number 512. Original airdate 2001-11-28. Writer: Trey Parker.

“I‟m a Little Bit Country.” Production number 701. Original airdate 2003-04-09. Writer: Trey Parker.

“Spontaneous Combustion.” Production number 302. Original airdate 1999-04-14. Writers: Trey Parker, David Goodman.

THE SIMPSONS

“Homer the Vigilante.” Production number 1F09. Original airdate 1994-01-06. Writer: John Schwartzwelder.

“Home Sweet Homediddly-Dum-Doodily.” Production number 3F01. Original airdate 1995-10-01. Writer: John Vitti.

“Last Exit to Springfield.” Production number 9F15. Original airdate 1993-03-11. Writers:. Jay Kogen, Wallace Wolodarsky.

“Midnight Towboy” Production number JABF21. Original airdate 2007-10-07. Writer: Al Jean.

“Much Apu About Nothing.” Production number 3F20. Original airdate 1996-05-05. Writer: David S. Cohen.

“Old Money.” Production number 7F17. Original airdate 1991-03-28. Writers:. Jay Kogen, Wallace Wolodarsky.

“Simpson Tide.” Production number 3G04. Original airdate 1998-03-29. Writers:. Al Jean, Mike Reiss.

“The Scorpion‟s Tale.” Production number NABF08. Original airdate 2011-03-06. Writers: Billy Kimball, Ian Maxtone-Graham.

“The Telltale Head.” Production number 7G07. Original airdate 1990-02-25. Writers:. Al Jean, Mike Reiss, Sam Simon, Matt Groening.

“There‟s No Disgrace Like Home.” Production number 7G04. Original airdate 1990-01- 28. Writers:. Al Jean, Mike Reiss.

“Whacking Day” Production number 9F18. Original airdate 1993-04-29. Writers:. Al Jean, Mike Reiss.

“You Only Move Twice.” Production number 3F23. Original airdate 1996-11-03. Writer: John Schwartzwelder.