Team America World Police
[Warning: the following discusses elements of the movie that may spoil it for you.]
I saw Team America World Police last night, and I must admit it's a terribly funny film (as expected from the creators of South Park). The use of puppets showed wonderful artistry and it also allowed them to go way, way, way over the top in a way that couldn't be done with animation or live action. (Puppet porn, anyone?)
However, I must also admit some uneasiness over the film, and not out of respect for political correctness or sexual modesty. My enjoyment was dampened by its overall message (insofar as such an absurd comedic film may be said to have a message -- its defenders would deny it, but I think some messages communicated by the film are undeniably there and clearly taken in by the audience). The film's message? Dissent = terrorism.
There are two figures who are noticeably absent in the film. The first is Osama bin Laden. There are Al-Qaeda-esque terrorists, to be sure, but instead of answering to OBL, they answer to Kim Jung Il, whom the film portrays as an absurd, Dr. Evil type of supervillain.
The second and more conspicuous is George W. Bush. Team America itself (a collection of American G.I. Joe superheroes with an amazing arsenal of weapons that enables them to inflict all sorts of collateral damage across the globe) stands in for the Bush administration and U.S. foreign policy in general. But here the ridicule towards Bush is oblique. The target is really America in all its offensive, ignorant, violent, narcissistic patriotism.
Contrast the fim's direct critique of Hollywood's anti-war liberals (referred to as members of the "Film Actors Guild," or F.A.G. -- thus, it's the "FAG" way to speak out against the war -- har, har): Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Tony Robins, Susan Sarandon, Helen Hunt, Liv Tyler, Samuel Jackson, Matt Damon . . . they all play themselves. And in the film, they are not just actor-activists, but also terrorists. They defend Kim Jung Il in his diabolical plan for a "9/11 x 1000" terrorist attack across the globe. Initially, the plot device appears to be that the actors so want the peace promised to the UN and the world by Kim Jung Il that they'll do anything, even fight Team America, to defend it. However, this cannot be the whole story, for it cannot explain their later actions (e.g. Tony Robbins guarding members of Team America imprisoned and tortured by Kim Jung Il). It would be incredible for them not to see what Kim Jung Il is really up to after they've interacted with him, toured his palace and seen Team America members imprisoned. Thus, the anti-war liberals turn out to be not simply naïve actors who have been deceived by evil. No, they are, straightforwardly, terrorists. Tim Robbins and his ilk are evil. And they meet the bloody end we wish upon all bona fide terrorists, in the hilariously gory scenes made possible by the use of puppets -- much to the delight of the audience. Yet, what the audience ultimately cheers here is the death of prominent anti-war dissenters. It cheers the death of dissent against the war as something evil.
Earlier in the film, we are shown Michael Moore committing a terrorist act (a suicide homicide bombing) without any plot development to explain the act (not even a prior meeting between Moore and Kim Jung Il or some other terrorist leader). Moore simply goes from protesting outside Team America headquarters to blowing up himself and it along with it. The creators felt no need to explain why Moore would go from protesting to becoming a suicide homicide bomber or even to introduce the audience to the idea of conceiving Michael Moore as a suicide homicide bomber. Instead, he is straightforwardly a terrorist, and acts accordingly.
Now defenders of the film may say that this is part of its absurdist humor -- it's funny because it is absurd -- and so I should just lighten up. (Perhaps one might argue it makes fun of the very claim that dissenters are terrorists, but this is hard to see, given the satisfaction the audience is supposed to receive in seeing them die in such gory fashion.) However, I thought it was a flaw not at least to explain the transition of Michael Moore and his ilk to terrorism. It was too abrupt, and thus too hard to make sense of enough to laugh (at least for this lefty audience member). But what does it say to present prominent Hollywood dissenters not simply as the wealthy elitists they are, or as the naïve peaceniks that some of them are, but straightforwardly as terrorists, without any explanation of their transition in the plot to ensure laughter from the (whole) crowd? I think this sort of laughter, for those who did laugh, is a bit dismaying, because without proper plot development or background explanation, I don't see how it can be funny UNLESS one thinks it is straightforwardly funny to portray Hollywood dissenters as terrorists, because they really are terrorists if seen in the proper light. But someone who thinks this and laughs aloud at what happens on screen is not someone I can laugh heartily with -- rather, it's someone who makes me feel uneasy. For other than their supposed naivete and their elitism, what distinguishes liberal Hollywood actors from others who spoke out against the war? Are all anti-war dissenters "fags"? Are all dissenters essentially terrorists? And is this really a funny thing to say about them? Would it be funny to see them die in a gory way too?
Assessing the film simply as a piece of comedy, then, I have to say that it's flawed, because this very plot element didn't work -- it wasn't properly developed or explained by the film. As for its attempt to go beyond pure comedy to social commentary, I find it troubling.
It's useful to compare Fahrenheit 9/11, because I also found that film flawed both on its own terms and in terms of its larger public message. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a flawed film, but it's one that affirms the nobility of the common man and the value of free speech. Team America World Police is also a flawed film, but it's one that plays to the rubes and identifies free speech with terrorism.
Despite their respective flaws, both films are creative, unique and worth seeing, especially when compared to the tripe in theaters nowadays. However, while both claim to affirm the American value of free speech in a world of conformity and political correctness, only one truly does so, and it isn't the one with "America" in its title.
Bottom line: see Team America World Police. Laugh guiltily. But also be troubled, because where it leads can do genuine harm.
7:02:48 PM 
|
|
