[Cartman voice on]
Screw you guys, I say it was hella cool!
[Cartman voice off]
[Mr. Garrison voice on]
Isn’t that right Mr. Hat?
That’s right Mr. Garraseeyn!
[Mr. Garrison voice off]
The South Park movie was a self-fulfilling prophecy for me.
The basic thing that sets off the conflict in the movie is that the kids go to see a vulgar movie and after that, their language becomes deplorable, right? Well, my language has gotten noticeably worse since I saw the movie. Specifically, I now constantly say “suck ass.” Suck ass, suck ass, suck ass. Can’t say it enough!
I agree that it was brilliant social satire.
And as far as kids seeing the movie–there was a parent behind us in the theater who had brought young children with her. Throughout the movie, one kid, who looked to be about 6, kept saying loudly, “Mommy, what’s a clitoris? I don’t understand! Why is he looking for a clitoris? What IS a clitoris? Why is everybody laughing? What’s a clitoris?”
That was, quite possibly, funnier than the movie itself.
The “South Park Movie”: Art? No. Brilliant, hilarious, edgy, rowdy, and hilarious? Yes. (Did I say hilarious twice? Good.)
TechChick, I strongly recommend that you go out and rent this and watch it, but that if you are the sort of person to be at all embarrassed by something on the big screen, especially by a running joke about clitorises, you watch it in private, so you can be sure that your laughter is that of amusement, not embarrassment. I watched it in the privacy of my living room–if there had been anyone with me, I would have been embarrassed to be seen enjoying something so gross quite so much.
But be warned–it is pretty raunchy, so don’t take your grandmother (unless she enjoyed “Animal House” and “Porky’s”, way back when.)
Green Bean wrote:
LOL! When I was about 9 years old and my little brother was 7, my mom took us to some PG-rated comedy movie. In one scene, the Heroine is lamenting the fact that she’s lost everything, that people are out to kill her, “And to top it all off, I’m having my period.” At that point, my brother asked, very loudly, “MOM, WHAT’S A PERIOD?”.
Later, after my mom had told him that a period was another word for what she traditionally called “discharge”, a character in the movie was found stabbed to death, lying in a pool of her own blood. My brother said, in all seriousness, “Wow, she must’ve had a big period!”
The older I get, the funnier this seems.
tracer:
Hilarious!
Almost as funny as when my 3-year-old son was playing legos with my wife, and she recommended that they try to make a pyramid. She asked him if he knew what a pyramid was, and he said, “It’s when your belly hurts a lot.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
ckeller@kozmo.com
“Sherlock Holmes once said that once you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be
the answer. I, however, do not like to eliminate the impossible.
The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it that the merely improbable lacks.”
– Douglas Adams’s Dirk Gently, Holistic Detective
Yeah, the movie was damn funny, but I am laughing even harder at those who claim it as art.
Pardon me while I burst into flames.
Diane–
I nominate you to provide a working definition of the word “art”, since you seem to know what it is and is not.
The definition of art, for the purpose of this discussion, has already been thoughtfully provided by Cactus Jack, in his OP. 
Ask and ye shall receive.
Art, according to Webster’s II Dictionary
- Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature. * Almost, until you get to the “work of nature” part. *
- Conscious arrangement or production of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a way that affects the aesthetic sense. Production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. * Aesthetic? Beautiful? Naw. *
- The study of these activities. * Nope. *
- The production of these activities. * Producing entertainment, but doesn’t fit the description of “work of nature”, “aesthetic”, or “beauty.”*
- High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty. * Again, SP was rip-roaring funny but I doubt it was meant to be perceived as beautiful by the “artists”. *
- Aesthetic value. * If you stretch the definition really, REALLY far, maybe. *
- A field or category of art, as literature, music, or ballet. * Maaaaaybe, kinda, sorta, in the sense of film making, it refers to the general definition. *
- A nonscientific branch of learning, as one of the liberal arts. * Naw, doesn’t work. *
- A system of principles and methods used in the performance of a set of activities (i.e. the art of baking). * Maybe, if you are referring to the use of toilet humor as an art form. *
- A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods (i.e. pursuing the weaver’s art). * Nope. *
- A specific skill in adept performance, held to require the exercise of intuitive faculties that cannot be learned solely by study (i.e. the art of storytelling.) * Nope *
- Artful stratagems. * Nope. *
- Artfulness, cunning. * Nope. *
- Illustrative material in a printed work. * Maybe if you include the movie posters in your definition. *
Maybe you should be looking in the dictionary under the letter “E” for entertainment.
Pardon me while I burst into flames.
Well, I didn’t really expect a response to my question :D. I appreciate your engaging in a discussion about this.
I quite agree that the word “art” has been defined in dictionaries–as it should be.
BUT…
in real application, it is impossible to use the definition you provided (or any definition, I would submit) to systematically weed out “art” from “non-art” without making use of personal opinions and beliefs–judgement calls. There is absolutely no objective criteria to my knowledge that would allow that to happen.
I take no issue with any person’s views on art–what they consider art and what they do not. I myself have a few strong opinions on the subject–but they are just that.
I do take issue with anyone who says they can make those decisions for me.
Is a fart joke beautiful? Not to me.
Is a talking clitoris beautiful? well… (moving right along!)
Are long streams of meaningless profanity beautiful? Again, not to me.
But…
Is a work of creativity that manages to combine all of the above in such a way that delights me and tickles my imagination beautiful to me? You bettcha!
Just to reiterate–I don’t mind one bit if you choose to exclude Southpark from your world of “art”. I welcome your differing opinion. You and I may very well have enjoyed the film in very similar ways, and simply have different ways of looking at it.
My only point is that the word “art” is loaded, and I for one try not to point it at anybody else.
The talking clitoris would’ve been more beautiful if it didn’t talk with a sheep’s voice. 
It was supposed to be mimicking Glinda, the Good Witch of the North from The Wizard of Oz, not Cher… er, I mean, a sheep.
“Now begone, before someone drops a house on you!”
Esprix
Wow, so according to the dictionary, art has to be beautiful? So, like, a disturbing painting of a scene from the holocaust, that is utterly and completely grotesque would not be considered art?
–
From an actual catalog: “Disco balls create an enchanting, dazzling effect of light shafts, adding movement and glamour to any occasion”
the Abrams’ bris was certainly memorable
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Perfect example, OpalCat. The word “art” has to be defined so that we can use it. But individual decisions on what’s “in the club” and what isn’t is purely a matter of taste.
Well, now you’re playing with semantics, which is just evil.
Art has to be subjective. Oh, so the dictionary says it has to be “beautiful”? What’s “beautiful”? Okay, now somebody’ll look up “beauty” in Websters, and post the definition. As if that answers anything.
Gimme a break. A ton of people would call Pamela Lee beautiful. To me, she looks like a walking piece of plastic.
I wouldn’t hesitate to call a grotesque painting of the Holocaust that makes people experience the pure horror of genocide “art.” No, certainly, genocide doesn’t make me “proud to be human.” But what does make me “proud to be human” is that someone was able to conjure something so powerful with nothing other than paints and canvas, and that they did it for a real purpose, not just to shock or horrify. If that means, for purposes of dictionary nit-pickers, I have to call it “beautiful,” too, then fine. Words is just words.
This why I originally posted this question. Fart and piss jokes don’t make me “proud to be human.” But if the South Park creators used the grotesque to mask their true intentions, and if those intentions were “noble” (that is, they were making a social statement), well, maybe that makes me proud.
I’m just not convinced they weren’t trying to break the land-speed record for vulgarisms in 80 minutes. Or that they threw a whole lot of shit at the screen and hoped someone else would figure out what it was all about.
Anyone ever read “A Connecticut Yankee”? Or “Gargantua and Pentagruel”? Or even “Gulliver’s Travels”? I guess I’m asking if South Park belongs in that class. I admit that I dunno, it’s why I asked.
Great. Now someone’s going to post a definition of “noble.”
But, Cactus, they were trying to be over-the-top vulgar in order to make a social statement about vulgarity. Doesn’t answer if it’s art or not, but it answers your question at least.
Esprix
Okay, sure, but what IS the “statement” about vulgarity? Look how much we can pack in?
Let’s all watch some stupid, narrow-minded people get upset at our silly movie with its cutout characters and (mostly) cheap animation? Let’s giggle at those people?
I dunno what, ultimately, it adds up to. Is it anything more than “Look, everybody. See how much we can (or can’t) get away with”?
Ah, well. I guess I liked it, anyway.
The statement was that the MPAA’s rules about what is and isn’t acceptable to mainstream America is outdated, stilted, inaccurate and ineffectual, when bad language is more strictly controlled than violent behavior, and sex is wrong but other bodily functions are allowed. Not only was that part of the point of it being such a vulgar-laden movie, but if you’ll recall it had a little something to do with the plot as well.
Again, does that make it art? Maybe, maybe not; but it does make a statement, regardless of whether we agree with it or not.
Esprix
I noticed there wasn’t a single bad word spoken in the Gore Vidal/Bob Guccione Caligula…