Sheryl and I saw Team America last night with Charles Johnson and Dennis the Peasant. All of us loved the film. Before I get into my comments, it is interesting to see that www.rottentomatoes.com shows only 80% fresh tomatoes (percentage of positive reviews) rating – good but not as good as the movie really is. The film hits too close to home for some of the establishment reviewers. Roger Ebert was offended and gave it only one star. The NYT’s A. O. Scott carefully takes the zing out of his “favorable” notice by saying “The movie is more satisfying as straight-ahead blow ‘em up than as a satire.” Nonsense. The movie is pure, unrelenting Rabelaisian satire and those being ridiculed are people just like Scott, the self-satisfied purveyors of the Zabar’s Zeitgeist. As the recent behavior of Sean Penn indicates, it is very hard to laugh when you are the butt of the joke.
Also worth noting is that the movie is not opening that big – a four million six opening night behind Shark’s Tale, but with a slightly higher per screen average. (Per screens are watched as indicators of future business). Last night (Saturday) should be higher still, as always, with more true indication of the film’s
‘legs” available from the Sunday grosses. I wonder how successful this film is going to be. Judging by the sometimes strained laughter at the Sherman Oaks Pacific Galleria last night, it makes some people uncomfortable. I find that amusing because most people pride themselves on being hipsters hereabouts, but they have been out-hipped.
The good news, however, is that the first major studio release about the War on Terror is actually in favor of the war. Even though Team America accidentally destroys the Louvre and the Sphinx, among numerous other monuments of civilization, and seems to revel in or be oblivious to collateral damage of all sorts, you know they are doing the right thing in the end. Terrorists are seen as objects of derision, of course. But the true targets of the filmmakers’ venom are the narcissistic Hollywood actors who pretend to oppose the war but who are actually… I believe it was Glenn Reynolds who wrote this originally… on the other side – in this case case quite literally (a superbly portrayed Kim Jong Il). I don’t believe I will ever look at any of these actors again the same way. Trey Parker and Matt Stone (the South Park duo) have demolished their pretensions forever. These men are brilliant filmmakers. All “tech creds,” as they say in the business – puppets, sets, editing, etc. – are great. They know what they are doing on a level that make the objects of their satire, well, mere actors.
Are there moments that don’t work? I suppose (not to me really), but there are in Rabelais too. The great satirist must go full-bore with no brakes on his contempt. Let the chips fall where they may. In this one, by the way, perhaps the most telling vitriol is spilled on, of all organizations, the UN. I won’t spoil you the pleasure by telling you how. As for Michael Moore, as most of the world knows by now, he is properly dispensed with.
UPDATE: Interesting analysis by Russell Wardlow below. Click on his site Mean Mr. Mustard for more.
UPDATE: It is now clear from the over nights that Team America, funny as it, is not a box office smash. From the Box Office Guru: Trey Parker and Matt Stone returned to theaters with Team America: World Police, which shot up a somewhat disappointing $12.3M this weekend, according to estimates, for a per screen average was $4,844. The small 4% Friday-to-Saturday increase does not bode well for the future. Critical reviews were mixed and Yahoo! users gave the film a B grade. Back in 1999, the duo’s South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut opened with $11.3M on its way to a cume of $52M.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
105 Comments
1. Charlie (Colorado):The sharks also opened on 4070 screens, and was on just short of 4000 on Friday, where TA was only on 2600. With the same number of screens, the sharks would only do $3.6 million.
Considering that TA is a hard R (and I can’t wait for the unrated DVD) it ain’t doing half bad.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:06 am 2. Scott Ferguson:Darn. Friday night after work at the Loews 34th St in Manhattan (my favorite house aside from Loews Kips Bay), the choice was to see either Team America, or Shawn of the Dead. I picked the latter because the showtime was more convenient — and it was a very funny film. But I’ll see Team America this afternoon.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:11 am 3. Charlie (Colorado):Do I get some kind of prize for first and second post?
Anyway, I read some of the reviews, and it’s interesting how many of the reviews are saying that it’s the “neo-cons and nation-builders” who are being insulted.
(It’s also a little odd that “nation-builder” is now a bad thing: wasn’t avoiding naiton-building one of the things Bush was reviled for in the 2000 election?)
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:12 am 4. richard mcenroe:You are worthless, Alec Baldwin,
And my stock in you has fallen…
Hope you stayed for all the songs in the credits.
And how did TA gross compared to that Sarandon/Gere dance flick, Light Up the Floor?
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:13 am 5. Buddy Larsen:Roger, you have at least a half-dozen major quotes in your essay. I’m gonna read it two or three more times, and get them imprinted for later use. This is among your most powerful posts ever, it terms of hitting the button that needs hitting. I salute you, sir.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:46 am 6. lindenen:I can’t wait untill this comes out in Europe. I want to see what people there think.
I have to see this! Wheeeeeeeeee!
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:51 am 7. Buddy Larsen:“…outhipped” from the RIGHT. Oh, this is bad. Bad, bad, bad. Badbadbadbad.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:51 am 8. John Clayton:“Even though Team America accidentally destroys the Louvre and the Sphinx, among numerous other monuments of civilization, and seems to revel in or be oblivious to collateral damage of all sorts, you know they are doing the right thing in the end.”
Roger, I think I’m starting to understand how you have been able to convince yourself that George Bush is a strong, firm, consistent (dare I say eloquent?) leader with a plan to turn Iraq into a stable democracy and a coherent strategy to defeat the terrorists.
Or else you forgot to add the following at the end of the sentence: “NOT!”
As for the attacks on the Hollywood actors- satire only works when truth exists at its core. Although the bits with the actors were funny (as was the Pearl Harbor song) they don’t work as satire. Just pure silliness. I will wager that Clooney, Affleck, and Damon, to name three, probably will laugh when they see the movie. Who knows, maybe Kevin Smith will do a sendup of Parker & Stone, and Damon and Affleck will participate.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:59 am 9. Duke City Gary:Re: Ebert
I think his reviews are increasingly colored by his politics. When he and Roeper reviewed F9/11, they both gave thumbs up and Ebert made a point of saying Moore was entitled to a specific point of view in his documentary. Fair enough.
Not one or two weeks later, they split on America’s Heart, a feel-good documentary about colorful/inspirational characters around the country. Roeper voted thumbs up, Ebert down. One of Ebert’s criticisms was that America’s Heart didn’t show anything bad about the US! To paraphrase, “where are the single moms without health insurance, the crack addicts, the unemployed!”
So if you want to trash America, wail away, but if you want to praise America, you better come up with some criticisms too. Different rules for the left versus the right, sound familiar?
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:00 am 10. ricpic:TEAM AMERICA – Yay!
What a pleasure, to – FINALLY – see those pretentious Hollywood ingrates nailed for what they are — the enemy within!
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:00 am 11. thedragonflies:Great fun! What a pleasure it was to watch the self annointed Hollywood sages get skewered (almost literally). All conservatives will love it, and all liberals could learn something by seeing it.
I loved the final philosophical rationalle for Team America going after the bad guys and dealing with the stupid guys.
Loved the film.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:13 am 12. j. marzan:So Ebert gave Team America one star, eh… OTOH, he gave Fahrenheit 911 3 and a half stars…
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040624/REVIEWS/406240301
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:20 am 13. kdoh_2000:I found this review inspiring enough to actually call a friend and pay for our tickets. We are going to the 4:15 showing. I remember seeing the trailer awhile ago, thinking MAYBE I’ll see this. Roger, you have managed to get this deaf teacher to the movie theater for the first time in probably 18 years! I hope I can catch the dialogue from the animated creatures, but the visuals seem that they’ll be worth the admission, not to mention seeing Michael Moore getting his just desserts!
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:25 am 14. Charlie (Colorado):John Clayton: listen carefully ….
They didn’t really destroy the Louvre, or the Eiffel Tower, and Roger isn’t suggesting that this would be a Good Thing.
It’s a movie.
They are puppets.
Good God, man, maybe Froogle could help you find someplace you could buy a clue.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:28 am 15. richard mcenroe:John Claytonô ó I know you’re still waiting for the official memo on this… but there IS no truth at the core of a Hollywood actor. Just, at best, a void into which the audience is invited to project their own needs and desires. Unfortunately, with success, the Industry insulation begins to clot around these “stars”, turning that desperate, empty sense of need that makes these actors so receptive to that projection into a thick and unresponsive sense of entitlement; they soon cannot tell the difference between being entitled to demand an exotic brand of water on location and being entitled to demand we uncritically accept their opinions on real-world. Both are equally arbitrary and unfounded, but while it is inconsequential to humor the former, the latter has real-world consequences Hollywood actors think don’t apply to them and thus don’t matter.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:29 am 16. Zak braverman:Read one online review from a major publication which said that, basically, the movie was satirizing the neocons/conservatives, and that those who didn’t get this supreme level of irony were just too stupid to really understand that it was the conservatives who were the true target of the movie.
I haven’t seen it yet, so I can’t say, but it seems that this is one of those “see what you want to see” events. Of course, I think Roger’s interpretation is much more likely to be true than some hack film critic’s.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:32 am 17. richard mcenroe:John Clayton ó Ah yes, the Eiffel Tower, that structure that the Parisians themselves condemned as an eyesore until the Pompidou Center went up and showed them what an eyesore really looked like…
And, of course, the Louvre, that vainglorious construction of kings filled with the frivolous acquisitions of brutal, arrogant aristocrats who themselves perished in a welter of blood and steel at the hands of crazed igorant peasants… who then turned around and begged a brutal Corsican tyrant to become their emperor and oppress them with their blessing.
Or, as I wrote to the Guardian on Ohio’s behalf:
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:43 am 18. richard mcenroe:Continued, he said crossly:
John Clayton ó
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:44 am 19. richard mcenroe:Screw the block quotes:
“While I appreciate the insights of a pack of sullen, epicene societal dregs squatting in the ruins of every failed social experiment of the last two thousand years, please note that I can get the same perspective over here at greater convenience by passing around a bottle of muscatel to the nice men living under the bridge. Thank you however for your good work in alienating more American voters from John Kerry. Could we ask you to expande your operation to California?”
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:45 am 20. Honus:This movie really went after both sides. There was a silliness and overzealous vigor with which Team America went after the terrorists, due to their ineptitude. However, there was also the reverse satire of the actors, who were overzealous in wanting nothing done. The film really didn’t hold anyone up on a pedestal, and it unabashedly went after the actors who as public figures should know that speaking their minds puts them up to this kind of satire.
Sean Penn’s reaction really makes me laugh.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:46 am 21. Russell Wardlow:I think that A.O. Scott’s NYT review was actually by far the most perceptive of the whole lot of mainstream reviewers, despite the “not as good as satire” line.
Consider this, for instance:
“Goofy as they are, the members of “Team America” are treated, in the end, with affection, even respect, which is part of the film’s political gist. When Team America blows things up in other countries, they do it by accident, in the course of their sloppy but zealous fight against the people who want to do it on purpose. This is not a trivial moral distinction, and it is one the film hangs onto in impressive earnest.
The obscene patriotic ditty that is the Team America theme song might be hyperbolic (and impossible to stop singing), but it is not sarcastic. Nor is a speech, delivered twice in the course of the action, most powerfully at the climactic moment, that is meant as an answer both to the Hollywood peaceniks and to the wishy-washy world community, whose representatives have gathered in North Korea for a peace conference.
Because of its graphic (though metaphorical) discussion of human anatomy, I can’t quote any of the speech here, but it is one of the more cogent ó and, dare I say it, more nuanced ó defenses of American military power that I have heard recently. It is conveyed in language that no politician would dare use, by a puppet speaking to a roomful of puppets, in the wake of jokes about oral sex ó all of which provides about as effective a camouflage as the pink and blue fatigues the Team America agents wear on their operations.”
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:52 am 22. flenser:OT
Somebody may have already linked to this, but if not, there is an Iraqi blogger opining on the US elections. Worth a look.
http://messopotamian.blogspot.com/2004_10_01_messopotamian_archive.html#109796772942861120
On topic, I’m gonna have to check out this movie, based on these reviews.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:56 am 23. PeterUK:Clayton,
Don’t torure yourself about the Louvre,they probably looted it first,the Mona Lisa is safe and the French have the building insured,as for the Sphinx,it’s old it’s second hand,Egypt would be better off, with a WalMart.
Stop worrying about the puppets,they were only acting,in real life they’re good puppets,they’re kind puppets,go back to sleep.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:58 am 24. Byron00:Below is from James Berardinelli’s movie review site http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/t/team_america.html
He apparently sees the movie as an even-handed satire that “can’t be accused of picking sides”. A pox on Bush, a pox on his Hollywood/UN adversaries, too. Are viewers simply going to interpret this film according to their attitudes going in?
“So, from a political standpoint, what is Team America saying? Although it never mentions George Bush, the idea of Americans as “World Police” is right out of the current administration’s doctrine. There is, of course, a widely held belief around the globe that the U.S. government’s tunnel vision breeds an insensitivity to outside concerns. (Hence the scenes in which our heroes are lauded at home for killing the terrorists even though two cities – Paris and Cairo – are virtually destroyed in the process.) Stone and Parker can’t be accused of picking sides, however. They turn Michael Moore into a gluttonous, babbling idiot who becomes a suicide bomber. And a cadre of high-profile Hollywood political activists (”can’t take a joke” types like Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Martin Sheen, etc.) are established as out-of-touch egomaniacs.”
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:00 am 25. richbaldwin2:How about a mini superscripted-th moment at the expense of the BBC? I am fascinated that they made this mistake.
Here’s their review of Team America, from Oct 15th:
They have created a world in which the patriotic Team America crew is set on a mission to combat the North Korean dictator Kim Jong II who’s selling weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Note carefully: that’s two “cap eyes”, not “cap eye, little el” for the third part of his name. Kim Jong the 2nd, perhaps?
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:26 am 26. CalDevil:Can’t wait to see this film, but I’m wondering about Roger’s point about not being able to look at some these actors (i.e., Baldwin, Penn, Robbins, Sarandon, etc.) the same way after seeing the movie.
As much as I can’t fathom most of the drivel that these celebrities routinely spout, it has not affected my view of their work. The four named above all remain great actors IMO. I just watched Baldwin in the Cooler last week and was blown away by his performance.
I can also listen to him banter with Howard Stern about non-political issues and enjoy the diversion on my morning commute. Same with most musicians like Springsteen, REM, et al. The one exception has been the Dixie Chicks and that’s primarily because they have come off simply as incredibly dumb poseurs more than anything.
I’m wondering whether there are any others who still have no problem enjoying the work of some of these political idiots / aristic savants.
Or has their tendency to spout off ignorantly turned you off and kept you from separating the performance with the personal?
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:28 am 27. chuck:It’s a satire about all too many perceptions of the World Out There as a bunch of “haters” with funny accents.
Desson Thompson seems to think it is a satire making fun of us crude members of the VRWC. So he likes it. Link.
Hank Stuever feels the same and is shocked that the audience around him misinterprets the movie’s obvious anti-Bush intent. Link. Boy, those other folks in the audience must be dumb, eh?
At this point, I wonder if some of these critics aren’t writing parodies of themselves without being in on the joke.
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:31 am 28. mrp:52-44-1
heh.
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:42 am 29. Average Joe:Roger, thanks for the interesting and informed review. I was looking forward to it and you have not disappointed me. The remarks made in some of the comments are also insightful. Thanks Again, Roger and everyone else.
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:55 am 30. richard mcenroe:Chuck ó Aw, let em type. Imagine the looks on the faces of the parlor pinks they sucker into going to the movie…
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:59 am 31. Charlie (Colorado):Ah yes, the Eiffel Tower, that structure that the Parisians themselves condemned as an eyesore until the Pompidou Center went up and showed them what an eyesore really looked like…
Hey! I really like the Pompidou!
Or liked, anyway. Has it opened again?
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:59 am 32. Charlie (Colorado):Are viewers simply going to interpret this film according to their attitudes going in?
Yes.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:02 am 33. Matteo:No time to read this thread until later, but my review of this wonderful, cathartic, laugh-riot of a left-winger trashing movie is here:
http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2004/10/in-your-face-michael-moore.html
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:04 am 34. Charlie (Colorado):that’s two “cap eyes”, not “cap eye, little el”
Oh good God, Rich — that typo’s a bit thin to hang anything on.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:04 am 35. Charlie (Colorado):CalDevil: I’m wondering whether there are any others who still have no problem enjoying the work of some of these political idiots / aristic savants.
You misspelled “eristic”.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:06 am 36. Fausta:Didn’t [the late} Siskel & Ebert pan the fist Star Wars and give 2 thumbs up to The BlackHole instead?
Charlie (Colorado), it looks like the Pomp’s open.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:07 am 37. hud:You’d probably get a kick out of these two reviews. The reviewers are happy when conservatives are dissed but angry when their side is.
http://slate.com/id/2108232/
http://www2.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&obj_id=42709
I especially liked the Slate one, because the bias was so pronounced. He deserves his own puppet with an exploding head.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:12 am 38. Eric Deamer:I saw it a week ago at a “sneak preview”. Here’s my (strongly positive, more “spoilers than Roger’s) review. I also link to a review from the “Ain’t it Cool News” guy (”Moriarty” not Harry Knowles, thank God.). It’s strongly positive, though he saw a different cut than I did. Also link to a review from a guy writing for Fox News. Even though he’s writing for Fox News, he sort-of praises Fahrenheit right below it, so maybe it does have bi-partisan appeal. There is a review from someone or other on MSNBC called it “the funniest movie of the year”. I think it may have been cut again so that Roger saw a different cut than I did. I hear some rumours that the epic puppet sex scene was cut down to mere missionary, as opposed to the awesome battery of positions I saw, which would be a pity.
I worry that my “sneak preview” money will not contribute to the opening weeking gross or per screen average. I would love to see it out-earn Fahrenheit.
The colorful theory of International Relations which Roger refers to at the end here (and which I describe in far greater detail on my much less family-friendly blog) is really the crux of where the film is coming from on those questions. Anyone who sees it primarily as a satire of “neocons” or “nation-building” is deluding themselves.
It reminds me of a half-remembered quote by the late Michael Kelly. Something about how even if you view America as a big, clumsy, arrogant oaf, wouldn’t you prefer to have this oaf getting jackboots out of people’s faces and protecting the world than not?
“Team America’s” interventions are clumsy and cause a lot of collateral damage, but they are without question, in the context of the film, necessary. I think that one of the most impressive aspects of the film is that Parker and Stone have the humanity and empathy to show both sides of this equation. For instance, when the team streaks out of the sky with all of their vehicles and weapons in “Cairo” (heh), they say over loudspeakers in English to the terrified populace: “Don’t Worry. We’re only here for the terrorists!” The whole experience for the townspeople is terrifying, and the attempt to calm them down is ridiculous and hamhanded, but again, there is no other way. I could see the same scene being played out in Baghdad as we speak.
I find Ebert’s reviews worthless for both aesthetic and political reasons so I haven’t paid attention for a long time. However, even I am surprised that he’s become such a constipated lefty bore that he’s automatically offended by a non-politically-correct film.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:15 am 39. CalDevil:Charlie:
Fat fingers + small keyboard – spell check = aristic
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:16 am 40. heather:On Actors and Politics: Actors are actors, they ACT; and to do this well, they are (I think) hollow in places most of us are not.
But, they amuse us. And we are willing to pay lots of money to people who amuse us.
For example, Alec Baldwin is a wonderful actor. I loved him in Main Street (in which he plays a not very bright actor, by the way).
So, I think it is up to us to remember that actors are silly, and know nothing of world reality. So be it. It is a mark of our own silliness that we give these silly people any credibility at all.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:22 am 41. Charlie (Colorado):CalDevil: Uh, that was actually humor:
“WordNet (r) 2.0″
eristic
adj : given to disputation for its own sake and often employing specious arguments syn: eristical
n 1: a person who disputes; who is good at or enjoys controversy syn: disputant, controversialist
2: the art of logical disputation (especially if specious)
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:25 am 42. Charlie (Colorado):Charlie (Colorado), it looks like the Pomp’s open.
Oh, good. I’d heard they had to close it because of structural problems, hadn’t heard it was open again.
So I like plumbing.
And ducts. Definitely ducts.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:29 am 43. Average Joe:hud, I particularly like the following quote from David Edelstein’s review in Slate that you linked:
It recalls happy times back in college when my friends and I would satrize this sort of pseudo-intellectual pretension in the movie reviews in self-consiously “intellectual” newspapers and magazines. Not only has the pretensious, self-congratulatory nonsense remained unchanged, the politics of the pretensious, self-congratulatory nonsense has remained unchanged.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:44 am 44. shel:Re: CalDevil’s question
I wish I could separate the artists from their politics, but usually I can’t. Your post helped, however, and so did heather’s. It’s really my own head, investing them with too much integrity and importance, the way a lot of Americans do, I guess (I’ve heard it said that they are our “royalty.”) Springsteen is the one I have the hardest time with; I really respected him and now I don’t (sigh). Used to enjoy Rufus Wainwright’s music too, but now I don’t think he has a brain in his head. Actors don’t bother me quite as much; I was able to enjoy Sean Penn’s performance in Mystic River.
Anyway, it’s an excuse to go back to the classics, i.e., listening to the music and watching the movies of people who are already dead
at least they can’t piss me off.
suellen
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:45 am 45. jdm:The wife & I saw the film last night. Based on many of the reviews and comments from last week’s sneak preview I think my expectations were far too high. I almost had to be disaapointed. I was.
The film is fine, well done/made, clever. I agree with its politics and the targets of its satire: big budget, blow-em-up Bruckheimer action films are as much if not more of a target than the Michael Moore Left.
However, I expected funnier. Much of the satire was “heh” instead of “hahahaha” – especially the political satire.
The film is supposed to be very crude/vulgar, but it didn’t bother us nor the people around us. The use, however, of gay sex as a plot device will, I guarantee, hurt future sales in the exurban areas similar to where we live. You could almost feel the air go out of the audience when the gay sex scene went the way it did.
In short, like on the old Bandstand, it has a good beat, it’s easy to dance to, we give it an 80.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:49 am 46. CalDevil:Charlie,
Thanks. Got it on the first take.
My response was attempt at humor too – self-deprecating, if not overly clever.
Oct 17, 2004 - 11:52 am 47. Terrye:John Clayton:
Lighten up…
Oct 17, 2004 - 12:16 pm 48. Peter G.:Good to see that Mean Mr. Mustard has returned. I thought he had retired, or been Berkleyized into silence.
Oct 17, 2004 - 12:23 pm 49. Joe:Just now got in from seeing TA. On the technical level, I must agree with Eric Deamer; the detail and mobility of the puppets, particularly their faces, is astonishing. I read on another blog that the same lady who did a lot of the marionette design work on the original “Thunderbirds” series served as an advisor to the Parker/Stone team for this movie. Can anyone confirm?
I think my favorite parts were the ones satirizing Kim Jong Il and North Korea, particularly the cheesy “musical” that KJI puts on for the “World Peace Conference”. It’s especially funny because it’s not at all exaggerated; the North Koreans really do put on jawdropping propaganda spectacles like this (e.g., the “Arirang Festival” in Pyongyang’s main stadium) complete with all-singing, all-dancing casts of NorK soldiers and sailors. Stone commented in an interview (relayed on LGF) that he’d done extensive research on Kim and NK, and it shows.
Oct 17, 2004 - 12:53 pm 50. Dan Goodpasture:Very interesting and enlightening interview with Stone and Parker here:
‘TEAM’ SPIRIT NOT FOR EVERYONE
Dan
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:24 pm 51. Karl:Someone asked about the edits to the sex scene. It’s my understanding that there were bits of oral sex and — um — more scatalogical things — that were cut to get the “R” rating.
Someone asked whether the politics of the celebs lampooned has affected anyone’s viewing habits. Answer: You bet, particularly with the actors. Movies depend on suspension of disbelief, which is harder to achieve when the actor attempting it induces the gag reflex. I tend to stay away from anything involving Alec Baldwin, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, Sean Penn, George Clooney, etc., at least until it gets to cable. There are plenty of other actors of the Left who do not inspire the same reaction, because they don’t do out of their way to make their politics part of their public personas.
Now that I think about it, I haven’t bought discs from R.E.M. or Springsteen in ages, either (an I once drank with the former). CalDevil may think it’s just the Dixie Chicks who come off as dumb poseurs, but my milage varies on that. Springsteen has done benefits for the Christic Institute, which is about as far Left as one can possibly get. However, my enjoyment of their music (or that of other Lefties) does not depend so much on suspension of disbelief, so their politics don’t interfere as much with my enjoyment of their work.
Are there exceptions? Yes; I saw The Royal Tenenbaums (narrated by Baldwin) first run, and High Fidelity, in which Robbins has an air conditioner dropped on his head. And I wonder why Parker & Stone included Liv Tyler in Team America; Julia Roberts would have been a much better choice.
The point above about these people being silly entertainers whose opinions can be easily dismissed is well-taken. However, our country to often engages in idol worship; their opinions are given a disproportionate amount of attention by the media (and, sadly, Congress) for reasons that have nothing to do with the merits of those opinions. And it annoys me that the Baldwin-Sarandon-Clooney axis interferes with my ability to enjoy projects to which they are attached. hat’s arguably my problem in part, but over time, Hollywood may come to realize that the customer is always right.
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:27 pm 52. State 29:I just got back from a Sunday afternoon matinee.
It’s very funny and biting. I thought the Hollywood parts would be reduced to “cameos” but they are a huge part of the ending. Hollywood must be freaking out.
Beyond that, I can’t believe this movie got the “R” rating. The “puppet sex” scenes (practically every position!), the scene where Gary comes back and tries to convince Spottswoode that he’s committed to Team America again – these scenes should be not be available to anybody 17 or under. I know teenagers know and see a lot, but nobody should be able to take their 12 year old into this movie. The MPAA is a joke.
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:39 pm 53. richard mcenroe:The puppet work for TA was done by the Chiodo Bros., who used to do a lot of Saturday mornings kids’ puppet shows…
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:42 pm 54. Eric Deamer:It recalls happy times back in college when my friends and I would satrize this sort of pseudo-intellectual pretension in the movie reviews in self-consiously “intellectual” newspapers and magazines. Not only has the pretensious, self-congratulatory nonsense remained unchanged, the politics of the pretensious, self-congratulatory nonsense has remained unchanged.
Actually, I think it was meant to be a satire of this type of writing, though perhaps he didn’t carry it off well. The next line was something like “Oh. And I like the character that’s a living poop and leaves little poop marks wherever he goes.” Andrew Sullivan nominated those opening sentences for a “Poseur Alert”, but then backed down and apologized when a bunch of people wrote in saying that it was meant to be some sort of a joke.
I was annoyed with Edlestein’s review insofar as he praised the satire on the right but criticized the satire on the left. OTOH he did endorse the scatalogical doctrine of foreign relations which we’re not naming here. He also did make a point that the Michael Moore puppet’s fate wasn’t effective political satire. Michael Moore thinks he’s too indispensable to “the cause” to do something like that. I myself think it would have been better if they’d gone after his egomania or his ill-treatment of his underlings or something like that. Though I did love seeing him with those two chili dogs!
I agree with Russel Wardlow’s take on A.O. Scott’s Review. I think he actually “got it” in the spirit it was intended, even though I’m sure he ultimatley disagreed with the politics.
On Actors:
As I say on my site: Though I think it’s correect (and fun) to look at this film as a broad general endorsement (with grave reservations) of the Bush Administration’s foreign policy – and I actually call it a “libertarian hawk manifesto” – more than anything I think it was simply a parody of Jerry Bruckheimer-produced action films and an attack on actors. From interviews and from the movie, it’s obvious that these guys just generally hate actors, and I mean simply as people, before they even starting mouthing off with uninformed opinions about politics. I love the fact that the “hero”, Gary, is reading Stanislavsky’s An Actor Prepares in one scene, and that his acting literally saves the world. I love how he almost does a complete 180 on his thoughts re: terrorism and the US because Alec Baldwin, who is repeatedly referred to as “the greatest actor in the world” disagrees with him. God I love that running gag.
These guys did the movie with puppets for the same reason they usually do animation. They want to be able to do almost all the voices themselves so they don’t have to work with actors. And I really think that that’s the most subversive aspect of this film. What is the difference between a real $20 million actor getting paid that amount to do mostly green screen work in a similarly crappy Bruckheimer film and their puppets doing the same thing? And why do we elevate these people to such a high position in our society and listen to what they say? The use of the puppets shows that actors aren’t necessary. Technological changes will bear that out. As big budget films have more and more of the production done inside a computer I can’t imagine that big stars will continue to command these salaries. And when the computer can create photo-realisitic digital “actors” all bets are off.
On the Korean stuff:
I was living in South Korea during the two Korea summits of 99-2000, and Joe is completely right about Kim Jong-Il’s entertainments. The parodies in this movie looked exactly like the shows that were put on by the North for the summits. The expressions of forced joy combined with obvious fear of torture on the puppets’ faces were eerily real. They also got some of the verb endings right in the joke “Korean” they made up.
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:46 pm 55. Kevin P:Roger:
I have never been a fan of the South Park duo. The toilet humor and the use of swear words out of the mouth of cartoon children was amusing at first but grew stale after awhile. But they have been consistent and have drawn rave reviews from many of the reviewers that are dissing them now for the very type of humor that they appear to be using in this film. What has changed? They have gone after the sacred cows of the Hollywood community and in this election year you are either with Sarandon and Michael Moore or you are considered an apostate and worthy of derision.
I don’t have the link but if you go to the LA Times and read their review of the movie you can filter out the smoke and find that the parts that “work” are the ones that go after Bush and the ones that “don’t” are the ones that go after the pro-Kerry entertainment community. They even have the chutzpah to complain about the “shock” value of the material.Whether you like that type of humour or not this team has always used this technique to make their points and have received kudos from the bulk of the chattering classes until they went after the wrong people.The Eberts of the world were perfectly happy to see their foes suffer from these attacks but now that their compatriots have fallen under the knife they have suddenly developed some of the “old fart” rhetoric that I have employed against this team. I won’t see this film and I wouldn’t recommend it but I didn’t like their previous work either. To see the film critics adopt my complaints against their work does not make me feel warm and fuzzy because it has nothing to do with why I don’t enjoy their material. It is so obvious that their complaints have nothing to do with their style, but it is the targets of their humour that upset the thumbs up crowd.
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:53 pm 56. JeremyR:I think what the SP guys feel about actors can be summed up from a line from the episode on the Florida recount
“Half the kids in the class didn’t vote for your nephew, so what about them? You don’t give a crap about them because they’re not on your side! People like you preach tolerance and open-mindedness all the time, but when it comes to Middle America, you think we’re all evil and stupid country yokels who need your political enlightenment!! WELL, JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE ON TV DOESN’T MEAN YOU KNOW CRAP ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT!!! NOW GET YOUR ASS BACK ON FIRST CLASS AND RESPECT THIS CLASS’S RIGHT TO MAKE UP THEIR OWN MINDS!!! [Rosie and the kids gasp] ÖOh, sorry I got a little off the subject, kids.”
http://www.spscriptorium.com/Season4/E413script.htm
Also, I understand the reason they used puppets, was that one day they were wactching TV, and came across and old episode of Thunderbirds, and one of them was amazed by it, never having seen it before. At first they wanted to do a remake of “The Day After Tomorrow” using puppets, as but that idea was quickly nixed. Or so said the article I read.
Also, bear in mind, while it’s probably not going to be a hit, it’s had the best opening for any puppet movie ever.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/genres/chart/?id=puppet.htm
Oct 17, 2004 - 1:59 pm 57. bkw:clue for the poor? clue for the poor sir?
Won’t someone please think of the children??
Oct 17, 2004 - 2:03 pm 58. kynna:Great link to the interview Dan. I particularly like the following quote:
“Parker: Look, we were below middle class growing up, and I had a dream that someday things were gonna be better, and I assume that’s the way it is in Third World countries. So, if you’re not going to enjoy the dream, then there’s no hope for anything.”
This is a simple concept which the LLL does not seem to understand. If you can’t get this then how can you have anyone’s best interests at heart?
Oct 17, 2004 - 2:36 pm 59. asher:Looking forward to seeing Team America this week. I’m glad to see others share my own disgust with today’s so-called intellectuals – and I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who’s stopped worshipping at the feet of REM.
Oct 17, 2004 - 2:38 pm 60. GameKeeper:Roger,
My son and I were also at the Pacifice Galleria showing last night. Wish I had known you were there!
Loved the film, the sex scenes had us rolling in the aisle. Do not think this film would be offensive even to a six year old. It was brilliant, funny and poked fun at both sides. As a Republican, I particualry enjoyed the actors getting destroyed in the end.
The best character for me was Kim Jong-Il. The heck with the reviews…..everyone should see it and make up their own minds.
Oct 17, 2004 - 2:48 pm 61. Jamie Irons:Eric Deamer, kynna and GameKeeper
Good comments. I’m looking forward to seeing this film; the trailer I downloaded was hilarious.
Jamie Irons
Oct 17, 2004 - 5:06 pm 62. joshuasharf:Planning to see it this afternoon. I remember Stone or Parker (they’re interchangable, aren’t they?) saying once that, “I hate conservatives, but I really f—ing hate liberals.”
Oct 17, 2004 - 5:22 pm 63. MDCLXVI:So are Trey Parker and Michael Moore not friends anymore? I remember he was in Bowling for Columbine, was he not?
Oct 17, 2004 - 5:32 pm 64. Tom Stamper:I went to see TEAM AMERICA with two friends on Friday Night. Although we clearly stated that we wanted tickets for TEAM AMERICA, two of the three of us received tickets for SHARKS TALE instead. I relate the story on my blog:
http://juntoboys.blogspot.com/2004_10_10_juntoboys_archive.html#109797350228829222
Oct 17, 2004 - 5:37 pm 65. Sally-O:I wonder if baseball playoffs didn’t present a weekend conflict for Team America’s target audience?
Some conservative friends have being saying this movie is good for Bush’s reelection chances. If so, well, whatever it takes, and I’m all for it.
But I honestly couldn’t respect anyone who’d pick who they vote for based on a puppet show.
Oct 17, 2004 - 6:15 pm 66. richard mcenroe:Sally-O ó You mean you’ve never seen a party convention?
Oct 17, 2004 - 6:32 pm 67. richard mcenroe:Tom Stamper ó There have been claims of such things before. Spike Lee claimed ticket sales for Malcom X were credited to other pictures, but of course that was a plot to keep the brutha down. And I think similar claims were made with regard to Last Temptation of Christ.
Oct 17, 2004 - 6:44 pm 68. Sally-O:Good point, richard.
But responding to Mr. Simon’s updated remarks: the orginal South Park Movie had a big opening largely because it was part of a preexisting and popular franchise.
Team America has no such intrinsic advantage, but it seems to me that there’s HUGE buzz surrounding it since its opening, and because of the political season it’s likely to draw folks (like me) who had no interest in seeing the South Park film. Of course it’s too soon to say, but the nature of Team America
is such that it’s more likely to experience a building groundswell from word-of-mouth than the front-loaded reciepts that come from a franchise’s built-in audience.
Oct 17, 2004 - 6:52 pm 69. Matteo:I’ve added an update to my blog’s review of the movie, examining the comical failure of liberal reviewers to “get” that this movie is not trashing “American jingoism”.
http://cartagodelenda.blogspot.com/2004/10/in-your-face-michael-moore.html
Oct 17, 2004 - 7:00 pm 70. Zak braverman:Hey Matteo, your repeated attempts to use Roger’s site to drive traffic to your own site are kind of over the top. If you have something to say, say it here.
Oct 17, 2004 - 7:36 pm 71. John Clayton:ìOn Actors and Politics: Actors are actors, they ACT; and to do this well, they are (I think) hollow in places most of us are not.î (HEATHER)
ìJohn Claytonô ó I know you’re still waiting for the official memo on this… but there IS no truth at the core of a Hollywood actor. Just, at best, a void into which the audience is invited to project their own needs and desires.î (RICHARD MCENROE)
Couldnít have said it better myself. Iím sure that the authors of those remarks saw through Ronald Reagan and realized that there was ìno there, there.î Not to mention Arnold Schwarzenegger and his simple platitudes which were eagerly scarfed up by the Republican faithful. (But didnít you cringe when he eulogized Nixon at the Republican convention as his inspiration to join the G.O.P.?)
However, the best example of that lack of core is George Bush. Hereís a quote from one of the top officials in his administration talking to Ron Suskind. Note the key phrase ìWeíre historyís actors.î
‘That’s not the way the world really works anymore,” he continued. ”We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality — judiciously, as you will — we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/17BUSH.html?oref=login&pagewanted=1&oref=login
By the way, my reaction to Rogerís comment was that I couldnít believe that he didnít recognize Parker & Stoneís satire of Team America swooping in to save the day to prevent terrorists from blowing up important cultural icons like the Eiffel Tower & the Louvre- then blowing them up themselves, leaving the local populace dumfounded that their saviours had managed to do as much or more damage than the terrorists had intended. And for those of you trying to read in your own philosophical bent to Parker and Stoneís motives, Iím guessing you havenít watched too many episodes of South Park or seen their first movie.
Anyway, I laughed so hard at one scene I almost had tears in my eyes. Even when the movie was stupid, it was funny.
Oct 17, 2004 - 7:52 pm 72. Rick Ballard:“Even when the movie was stupid, it was funny.”
Like calling like, I suppose.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:09 pm 73. John Clayton:By the way, it occurs to me that the right wing anger towards actors isn’t that actors’ views are uninformed- it’s precisely the opposite. Many outspoken actors have taken the time to become informed, and they eloquently articulate their views. People like Janeane Garafolo and Tim Robbins were impressive when they appeared on shows like The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher. They had as much or more credibility than the profesional politicians who were on the same shows.
No, the real reason for the right wing’s anger is that the actors have a platform- their views get disseminated, and many people who idolize them will listen to them. I don’t recall hearing any complaints from the right wingers about Charlton Heston, Ron Silver, or Bruce Willis being ignorant, hollow dunderheads unworthy of credence because their politics were Republican. So if you righeous critics out there value consistency, next time one of the arch conservative actors opens his or her mouth, you’ll treat him or her with the same disdain you heap upon Ms. Sarandon, Mr. Robbins, or Ms. Garafolo.
As for Michael Moore, he’s a special case. He makes documentaries, using real people and real video clips. Republicans didn’t disagree with him this Spring and Summer- they actively lobbied movie theaters to not show the film so that the poor, befuddled, ignorant masses, wouldn’t be swayed by seeing their fearless leader in his unscripted moments. Michael Moore is reviled for showing the ugly underside of corporate American and the Bush Administration. The most powerful moments in his movies are when he is off screen and not narrating- as in most of Fahrenheit 9-11.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:11 pm 74. Matteo:Zak
My apologies. I don’t mean to be violating a rule of etiquette. Main reason for linking back to my blog is that the entry is already there and formatted. It can be a real hassle to preserve formatting (especially block quotes) in a comment section. I’ve seen it go both ways. Some folks get irritated to see lengthy blog entries duplicated in comment sections. If any one else would like to speak up and say how they would prefer to see this handled, please do! I’ve been reading avidly and commenting occasionally in Roger’s blog comments for a long time. I don’t want to become an annoyance. I’ve only had my own blog for three weeks, so I can’t claim I’ve learned all the ins and outs…
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:21 pm 75. napablogger:Having lived in Hollywood ten years and met more “industry” people than I ever wanted to, my view is that most, 90%+, actors are shallow empty people who just want to be famous and when they become so their exaggerated self importance knows no bounds. One of the reasons they are good actors is because they are empty people and can fill in whomever the script calls for.
They deserved exactly what they got in this film. Sean Penn’s angry letter proves how self important, how truly vain this guy really is. When I was at a party or around people like this in Hollywood I would feel like I was suffocating, because there is no room in the world for anyone else but them and their opinions, no matter how stupid, no matter how misinformed.
I had a friend who became very successful as a producer and PR guy there, and his whole M.O. would be to go up to famous actors and suck up totally. Oh hi, I saw you in such and so movie and you were terrific, you gave a really incredible performance, and on and on like that to the point that any normal person would tell you to shut up. Not them, they sucked it all up and loved the guy. I was flabbergasted at first that people could be so easily manipulated like that, especially people that rich and famous.
These are the last people we want running politics. There are a few good ones like Arnie and some others, but the ones satirized in this movie fall into the self important group.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:28 pm 76. richard mcenroe:John Clayton ó Actually, what we saw was that Reagan spent many years as an effective and savvy labor organizer and negotiator before he went into politics, while Schwarzenegger runs a multimillion dollar corporate empire as well as acting. Has anybody seen anything like from Sheen, Penn or Robbins? In addition, both Reagan and Schwarzenegger decided to influence public policy by entering the political arena of public service, not simply issuing poolside pronunciamentos and scorning the proles for not falling down in fawning adulation.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:28 pm 77. richard mcenroe:John Clayton ó Oh, come now. Please point to any talk show appearance by Garofalo where she could back up one claim she made with collapsing into indignant slogans. I watched several of her and she was neither articulate nor informed. Neither was Robbins, from what I saw of him, and he in particular seems to suffer from the Hollywood delusion that free speech means no one talks back to you.
Oct 17, 2004 - 8:32 pm 78. Yehudit:Now I know what “analog issues” Charles was referring to . . . .
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:26 pm 79. someone:napablogger: About Sean Penn — as Matt Stone noted (in an interview with blogger Heather Havrilesky),
Bingo.
Oct 17, 2004 - 9:26 pm 80. j. marzan:here’s ebert’s old review of South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut.
Interesting.
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19990630/REVIEWS/906300301/1023
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:01 pm 81. jml_311:Matteo –
Only a VERY frequent lurker, but I was grateful for your links. They didn’t seem whorish because they were on topic and saved space which some people seem to think are the non plus ultra of blogequette.
But I’m not really in the know. If you’re worried about offending Roger, I’d e-mail him or one of the regular troll-slayers just to check that it’s kosher.
Can’t wait to see the movie. Am trying to see if I can fit it into my business trip. Hee.
– JM
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:16 pm 82. Zak braverman:Matteo,
I’m sorry if I sounded harsh. Who knows, maybe I’m the one who’s out of line.
I think of it like this: Each blog is a table in a huge restaurant where people are having conversations. When you join in a conversation, it should be to add something to the substance of that conversation. If you add something to the conversation AND say “By the way, I have my own conversation over here…” that sounds much more friendly than entering a given conversation merely to say “Hi guys, come come check out this table I have over here…”
Am I being clear or totally inarticulate? Hard to say.
Anyway, no hard feelings.
Zak
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:28 pm 83. Yehudit:“I hear some rumours that the epic puppet sex scene was cut down to mere missionary, as opposed to the awesome battery of positions I saw, which would be a pity.”
Just wait for the Director’s Cut DVD……
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:30 pm 84. j. marzan:here’s a huge collection of video and sound clips from the TA movie.
http://www.craptv.com/teamamerica/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=50
if you wanna hear kim jong il’s “i’m so ronery” song, click here:
http://www.craptv.com/coop/tawpmovieclip2.mov
or here
http://www.craptv.com/coop/tawpmovieclip3.mov
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:39 pm 85. j. marzan:you don’t have to wait yehudit. here’s the edited sex scene.
http://www.craptv.com/coop/TossinSalad.mov
Oct 17, 2004 - 10:40 pm 86. Dreadnaught:John Clayton: “People like Janeane Garafolo and Tim Robbins were impressive when they appeared on shows like The Daily Show and Real Time with Bill Maher.”
I would be fascinated to learn of a single observation Janeane Garafolo has made in public that was “impressive,” or which indicated an in-depth knowledge of politics, economics, culture and society, or history. Provide examples please.
Janeane Garafolo’s library I’m sure contains hundreds of back issues of Mother Jones and The Anarchist, but little else. She is a consumer of other people’s intellectual output, not a creator of same, and she lacks any noticeable critical thinking capacity when she regurgitates their stuff. Critical thinking comes from a comprehensive, usually book learned understanding of the whole field of debate. Without it Garafolo has shown herself to be a half-educated twit who’s never done the hard work of mastering the subjects she expounds upon.
Oct 18, 2004 - 12:08 am 87. o'malley:It played well on a Sunday night in Santa Monica. Santa Monica!
Oct 18, 2004 - 12:50 am 88. Yehudit:“you don’t have to wait yehudit. here’s the edited sex scene.”
Where’s the golden showers? I think you’re holding out on me. They have to have eidted out more than that.
No, really, folks, it’s okay.
Oct 18, 2004 - 3:01 am 89. G M Roper:Since my wife was studying for a major exam in her grad program, I took my 32 year old daughter to see Team America. We both laughed so hard we cried. At one point, she exclaimed “Oh my G-d, I can’t believe I’m watching puppet porn with my dad.” This brought down gales of additional laughter from those immediately around us.
This movie is a riot!
If the left don’t want to see their shibboleths punctured, tough, they ought to go any way for “diversity” if nothing else.
Oct 18, 2004 - 4:58 am 90. Percy Dovetonsils:I’m wondering whether there are any others who still have no problem enjoying the work of some of these political idiots / aristic savants.
I’ve pretty much stopped watching movies and TV, and am reading much more (so perhaps these actors are indeed performing a social good). It’s not only that these actors identify with an ideology that I find abhorent: it’s their utter disdain for us yokels who need enlightenment. That quote above about the “evil and stupid country yokels who need (celebrities’) enlightenment” nails it on the head. Sorry, but if you spit in my face, I’m spitting back. As some of my fellow Chicagoans say: “F*** me? No, f*** you!”
(Hey, at least I’m a Midwesterner, and get off easy with the polyester-clad hayseed stereotype – these artistes barely view Southerners as human. And let’s not even go into how they view the devout…)
The use, however, of gay sex as a plot device will, I guarantee, hurt future sales in the exurban areas similar to where we live.
Wait a minute – gay puppet sex??? Thank you, God, for this comedic gift.
Oct 18, 2004 - 8:36 am 91. Charlie (Colorado):John Clayton:
Many outspoken actors have taken the time to become informed, ….
Sadly, you’re whole argument appears to depend on this notion, which is mistaken.
If you listen to Robbins, Garofalo, et al., you rarely, if ever, hear them say anything that they aren’t parroting, nearly unchanged, from some less publicized source: The Nation, Chomsky, and so forth. This isn’t being informed, this is being fed lines — which makes perfect sense, as that’s their profession.
(Don’t imagine that I’m making fun of their profession, either — it’s too hard for me, I know.)
But when we start to take this parroting seriously, we quickly end up in twisty little passages of illogic, like when Tim famously gave a speech to the National Press Club, run multiple times on C-SPAN and sound-bitten on all the major networks as well as CBS, in which he complained at length that the Bush Administration had taken away his right to free speech.
It’s possible to be informed and disagree with Bush. I can imagine that someone could be informed and want to vote for Kerry. But what Tim Robbins et al are is not “informed” in any sensible usen of the word.
Oct 18, 2004 - 9:12 am 92. Demosophist:Roger:
I went to high school with Gene Siskel (Culver Military Academy, class of ‘63). Pity he’s not still around. I think he’d have loved this movie.
One of the pitfalls of satire is that, inebbitubrry, lots of people just don’t “get it.” I think Andrew Sullivan took a wild swing, and missed by a mile. Of course they’re also satirizing the US itself, but in a sympathetic way. Most of their heros are iconoclasts, so the notion that the US demolishes sacred images is less a criticism than than a kind of admiration of our single-mindedness. The idea they’re demolishing is that the Louvre really matters that much in the scheme of things… given that the enemy wants to destroy a great deal more than the Louvre.
Anyway, there are three kinds of people in the world. Double heh.
Oct 18, 2004 - 10:19 am 93. DennisThePeasant:John Clayton-
My, we are a windy one, aren’t we?
You know, you could save a lot of time and effort, not to mention bandwidth, if you simply condensed your posts to the two words that capture, in such impressive fashion, the grist of your particular mental mill…
“Matt Damon”
Oct 18, 2004 - 11:25 am 94. Charlie (Colorado):So you’re back in Columbus, eh, Dennis?
Sorry I missed you, and my sympathy that you’re back in Columbus.
Oct 18, 2004 - 12:40 pm 95. MichelefromLA:I’m hoping this film will be a word of mouth movie…my husband and I still haven’t seen it.
But I can’t wait. Any movie that has Sean Penn and Michael Moore getting pissed off, is a movie I want to see!! Hee hee…..
Oct 18, 2004 - 1:56 pm 96. Kevin P:Roger:
The self importance and ignorance of Tim Robbins and his crew would be funny if it wasn’t so sad. I saw his speech on C-Span where he issued his warnings about the “chill winds’ of censorship that was spreading over this country. As usual his paranoid ravings have been shown to be silly by the facts. The number of anti-Bush books, movies, songs, and other forms of entertainment and publications have exploded and I have yet to see anyone jailed, killed, or restrained by the,according to Robbins, nazi like tactics of Bush and Ashcroft.There was even a novel, and I am being generous by using that word, that discussed the reasons why President Bush should be killed. Yet Mr. Baker is free to ply his trade and unless you count literary critisism as censorship he has suffered no harm.
I also find it funny that many of these poor tortured artists have made many visits and gush over that real enemy of free thought and free speech Fidel Castro. Under the guise of reaching out they give support to a man who does jail authors and other artists for thinking and expressing their thoughts. He even jailed a librarian for letting the wrong type of books and articles to be read by the mental prisoners of that poor island.There is no right to vote in Cuba. It is a police state. Yet many of the Oliver Stone types gush over this tyrant, ignoring the proven Human Rights violations this dictator has committed, while at the same time trying to invent imaginary comparisons to Nazi Germany to slime the Bush administration with.
Oct 18, 2004 - 4:32 pm 97. Kevin P:Roger:
Just in case their are any Fidelistas lurking on this thread I will quote from Human Rights Watch,not exactly a right wing organization, and give everyone their take on the workers paradise that Castro has created:
……..”Over the past 40 years, Cuba has developed a highly effective machinery of repression. The Denial of basic civil and political rights is written into Cuban Law”…
Yet just the other night I saw on PBS another group of American musicians traveling to Cuba and waxing poetic about how their week or two of artistic expression will bring our two countries together and create a “one world” ethos that will free the world from terror and war.The fact that these artists are not free to leave, freely express their thoughts without fear of repression and jail(by the way this is real censorship, not the trumped up Robbins type, with jail and everything) never broke into the lets hold hands and just love each other propaganda fest that helps Fidel keep his people in bondage.
Oct 18, 2004 - 5:21 pm 98. Peg C.:We saw it yesterday; I liked it, hubby did not. I will say up front, I have never watched porn and this movie didn’t bother me, it made me laugh. He had a problem with the sex (the gay sex scene in particular). The alley vomit scene was ridiculous and you have to be in touch with your inner 14 yr. old boy (something I’m grateful to know nothing about) to enjoy it. Watching Hollywood actors get blown up, eaten by housecats, etc., was quite amusing and cathartic to both of us. Oh, for more of that! Where was Babs, though? I’d have given a lot to see her come to a violent and messy end.
I didn’t laugh my head off, though, and that disappointed me. Overall I’d give it a B. (Technically it is excellent and the music is great. And the anatomy lesson is priceless!)
Oct 18, 2004 - 5:22 pm 99. Charlie (Colorado):Peg C, you need to check out the entire South Park ouvre. Episode 112 might be a good one for you.
Oct 18, 2004 - 6:03 pm 100. docweasel:There’s no big mystery to me why Ebert hated it- anyone see a resemblance?
http://docweasel.com/kim.jpg
Oct 18, 2004 - 8:10 pm 101. Kevin P:Docweasel:
Are you sure that Ebert would be offended by the comparison? After all the Dear Leader is a ABB man so Ebert might not mind the comparison.
Oct 18, 2004 - 9:12 pm 102. MichelefromLA:John Clayton wrote -
“they don’t work as satire. Just pure silliness. I will wager that Clooney, Affleck, and Damon, to name three, probably will laugh when they see the movie. Who knows, maybe Kevin Smith will do a sendup of Parker & Stone, and Damon and Affleck will participate.”
Eewww….are you kidding? Kevin Smith is a bore.
But then, I don’t agree with any thing else you’ve written either.
Oct 18, 2004 - 10:08 pm 103. MichelefromLA:Hello JOHN ClAYTON!!! Anyone home?
Yikes!! Are you a publicist?? Or are you just out of your ever-lovin’ mind? You wrote:
“By the way, it occurs to me that the right wing anger towards actors isn’t that actors’ views are uninformed- it’s precisely the opposite. Many outspoken actors have taken the time to become informed,”
Remember Sean Penn was led around Iraq by Saddam’s people. Do you seriously think he REALLY saw Iraq as it was? Doesn’t Sean “Shanghai Surprise/Spicoli” Penn sound a little naive?
And don’t get me started on Michael Moore…but then maybe you’re kidding. I have a hard time believing any adult with an un-lobotimized brain can think a cleverly edited partial story – is a documentary. Yes, I remember the mellow days of Saddam’s Iraq…butterflies, kites, children laughing in the sunshine, ah..yes.
Not to mention Millionare-Moore’s obsession with money. His strange theories that good people committ horrible crimes only due to poverity, while condeming corporations as evil.
Personally, I’ve been on all sides -
A struggling actress living out of my car. But I didn’t committ any crimes. (There goes poverty causes crime theory.)
Needing to pay my bills, an evil corporation provided a nice salary, benefits, Christmas bonus and stocks. (Damn that evil corporation!)
Now as a business owner, I suppose I’m the evil salary provider. (I whip my slaves if they don’t produce fast enough! Bwaahaahaaahaaaaa……….
John Clayton, you and Michael Moore need to live a little. Maybe one day you’ll see how the real world works, rather than in theory or in the editing room.
Oct 18, 2004 - 10:27 pm 104. Matt Evans:Feeling left out, I went and caught Team America last night. I haven’t laughed that hard in a long time. Skewering the FAG’s (thats Film Actor’s Guild btw) was the best part of the movie- Sean Penn’s puppet was hilarious and hideous all at the same time and they perfectly captured Tim Robbins pseudo-intellectual rambling. Michael Moore as the world’s fattest suicide bomber- priceless.
Yes, the movie will be offensive to some people I guess but its so obviously satire that it really shouldn’t be that offensive. I may subject my fiancee to it this weekend and get her reaction – she won’t be able to watch the vomit scene (which had me in tears I was laughing so hard- I suppose I’m in touch with my 4 yr. old child !)
Matt Damon !!!
Oct 19, 2004 - 4:53 am 105. docweasel:KevinP:
Ebert is writing a sequel to his first movie – http://imdb.com/title/tt0065466/ – combined with TA:WP according to imDB.com: Beyond the Valley of the Puppets
Oct 28, 2004 - 12:17 am