In a bit of reverse Godwinizing, I claim that this is an inappropriate attitude to take towards the person of even someone like Hitler, much less Hussein.
Could you be a little more specific, Frylock? What was inappropriate - their enjoyment of the signed photo? The fact that the movie was played for Saddam? The fact that Parker and Stone are amused that the movie was played for Saddam?
I hope the administration doesn’t catch wind of this and launch an investigation on the Marines.
FTR, I wish there was some way to force Kim Jong Ill to watch “Team America” repeatedly.
Maybe he did, and it caused his stroke last year.
According to legend, Hitler did once screen a copy of Chaplin’s The Great Dictator, but if it’s true, no one knows what his response was. The movie was otherwise banned. Similarly, Mussolini banned Duck Soup in Italy.
Parker and Stone didn’t say they admired Saddam. Just that they thought it was cool they have a signed picture. Saddam is an important historical figure, just as he was a genocidal monster. Showing him “South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut” was the least of what he deserved. I hope they were able to find a DVD that was dubbed into Farsi so Saddam could catch every nuance.
That is hilarious if it’s true.
Was Saddam proficient in Farsi? I wouldn’t be surprised if he was better at comprehending English.
People directly involved in the handling of grave matters should treat them gravely. Satire should be left to those not involved.* So the army (and hence the division in question, which represents the army in an important formal sense) should not participate in satire of Hussein.
And by accepting the photo, Parker and Stone crossed the line, to some extent, from commentary to direct handling, and so also crossed the line from appropriate satire to inappropriate lightheartedness. However, I find what they did less repugnant than what the army division did, for the same reasons I added “to some extent” in the previous sentence.
*(To illustrate: If a serial killer tortured my parents to death, I shouldn’t be bothered by parody of the killer that may appear later in the media, as much as I should be bothered were my best friend to make a parody of the killer. I expect my best friend–being directly involved in the matter by virtue of being my best friend–to handle the idea of my parent’s killer more soberly.)
And another thing…
Another problem I have with this is it’s stupid. The depiction of Hussein in the film isn’t really a depiction of Hussein. It’s a depiction of Hussein’s depiction in the American (and much international) media. To think Hussein should feel humiliated by it is to completely not get the joke.
Really? When did the American media start portraying Hussein as gay and dead?
(Well, I think I know when they started protraying him as dead, but in my timeline it would be a bit late to influence the South Park movie.)
Your post assumes that to be a depiction of X, a depiction’s attributes must all be attributes of X. But this is clearly false, and moreover would eliminate the movie’s depiction as being a depiction of Hussein himself, since Hussein was neither gay nor dead at the time the movie came out. So who or what is it a depiction of, then?
Sorry, I was confused. I thought Farsi was the official language of Iraq, which I know now is not the case and I should have said Arabic. I have no knowledge of Saddam’s fluency in English. I would assume he was more proficient in the language he learned growing up.
I accept your comment in the spirit of fighting ignorance. You never know when someone here is going to nit-pick a comment made in jest.
I remember an “at home with John Waters” interview show where he gave a tour of his private collection. I don’t remember everything that was in it, but I do remember it included some of Hitler’s stationary, some silverware from from Ed Gein’s kitchen, a jar of dirt from John Wayne Gacy’s basement, and other things that are equally macabre. I say, as long as you came by it legally and honestly, whatever floats your boat.
I don’t have a problem, in general, with people owning memorabilia like this. The manner of and reason for acquisition can sometimes be a problem, though.
When I heard about this I was a little uncomfortable with it, too. Not so much for the reason you’re giving; more because I question whether or not it’s a humane way to treat a prisoner. But it’s funny for sure.
I disagree completely.
I disagree completely.
My heart goes out to Saddam and his family.
Alright then: I think there’s funny and unfunny, but I don’t think there’s such a thing as “inappropriate lightness.” For that matter, once you start talking about appropriateness in comedy, you usually end up killing it.
I could understand the OP’s point of view if anybody’s dignity or memory would have been violated by showing the film to Saddam, but I can’t really see that being the case; so I don’t see anybody hurt (except perhaps Saddam, for whom I don’t have much sympathy), nor anybody helped by not doing it, and I don’t think one can infer despicable intent from the marines’ actions.
I do think it’s pretty stupid and a bit of a childish thing to do, though.
Mine does not.