Animation seems to be one format of television that continues to break boundaries and challenge the limits of censorship and those set by the Television Violence Act. South Park in particular has made a name for itself by displaying vulgar characters and plot lines that are often protested in response. Often the episodes upset the general public, the government and on occasion, religious groups because of the depiction of subject matter that is widely considered ‘taboo’. ‘Parker and Stone’s gleeful determination to be equal opportunity offenders’ result in an abundance of enemy’s and public bodies prepared to try and take the cartoon series off air (Stratyner, Keller 2009:6). Before each episode, creators of the show Trey Parker and Matt Stone present us with their own personal take on the ‘mature content/parental guidance suggested’ warning that is satirical and becomes somewhat of a foreshadow of the shows lack of consideration for the rules and regulations in place. Still, the boys from South Park have been on our television screens for over 15 years.
Society has been evolving to slowly accept increasingly radical images of violence. The internet has allowed a new generation to access to disturbing content with a single click. There are sites dedicated to images and video files of people dying. With this information so accessible, television audiences are no longer surprised by the same story lines that they used to be. Now in order to shock, writers have to push the boundaries of censorship and create images that only a decade ago would have caused nationwide uproar. The research that promotes the assertion, that exposure to television violence frequently has the ‘effect of desensitising people to violence and increasing violent and aggressive behaviour’, is widely supported (Murtagh, 2007:34). Consistently trying to controversial, South Park is popular in part, because people are tuning in to see what they will do next. They push the limits further than any other format on TV today. But when analysing a show like South Park, it is important to decipher whether or not you’re offended by the events in the show because of their nature or if you’re offended because they are courageous enough to talk about it. Whilst most shows on television still opt for the less controversial route to the same destination, the straight forward offensiveness of South Park garners the majority of the attention. In many cases South Park is simply insensitive about a subject, so much so that it is protested. However, in the cases of government involvement in banning the show from certain countries, it is hard not to consider that the opposing party was merely annoyed at a situation being brought to light.
Cartoon boys telling each other to do obscene things and to act in certain ways is considered dangerous to the thousands of impressionable children watching. And it is no surprise that only the adults are contesting the show. ‘An average American household has the television set turned on 8 hours and 11 minutes daily, and children watch on average between two and four hours of television every day’ (Nielsen Media, 2004/5:132). Children grow up wanting to do the things that they cannot do, and as a result many grow up watching explicit material either on TV or on Film. South Park has managed to escape criticism for a lot of their work because they have never deliberately targeted the show towards children. However, as a cartoon, the show immediately appeals to a younger audience and combined with the content, which would make their parents wince, South Park suddenly becomes a must see show amongst young teens. And although society is not as easily shocked as it once was, there is still a universal agreement that we should be a certain age before being able to watch certain material.
Parents and activist groups have found South Park to be a repeat offender in influencing bad behaviour in kids. ‘A majority of the investigations into the impact of media violence on children find that there is a high correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive and at times violent behaviour’ (Martin 2003: 6). Obviously this is largely to do with the plot lines, language and imagery but some of this is partially to do with the continued representation of the main characters, a group of young boys. ‘Not a single character in South Park elicits a complicated emotional reaction from the viewer. Indeed, through the portrayal of repeated violent acts, the viewer becomes immune to the “reality” of this violence and is discouraged from registering any emotional reaction’ (Halsall 2009:33). Combined with the belief that viewers are being desensitised by television, merging explicit content with simple characters that do not use intellectual thought or consideration in many of their interactions, it’s understandable that our generation may be on a downward spiral towards inferior understanding of basic social situations.
Animation is a format that brings in large audiences and has done so since its beginning. In part because it is the simplest way of capturing the ‘hearts and imaginations of children and adults alike’ (Browne, Browne 2001:141). The rise of the adult cartoon in the last decade has pushed the genre to the forefront of everyone’s attention. And brings into question the reason behind its popularity. Cartoons provide comfort to adults as it reminds them of their childhood. Saturday morning cartoons, a childhood staple for many children across the world, provided the foundation for many of the shows on television today. Many American shows such as Bob’s Burgers and Family Guy use basic animated slapstick like the skits often seen in their predecessors over twenty years ago. The reason why these cartoons are popular amongst adults is because of this familiarity. They seek comfort in a format that hasn’t evolved its basic form in years. Yes, technology and its advancements has improved the quality significantly, but when stripped back to their core, shows like South Park could just as easily be a glorified Beavis and Butthead. Animation is able to avoid certain censorship issues because of this. The format doesn’t intimate its viewers, even with its sometimes provocative material. It sits almost docile in the background, unassuming and unobtrusive. So much so that animation only makes headlines when a show steps so far over the line that it would be impossible not to notice. Many institutions have attempted to change the content of animation over the years to be a controversial medium that is subjected to blacklisting, censorship and boycotts in an attempt to promote the popularity of the genre.
As afore mentioned, South Park manages to avoid repercussions for refusing to conform. In many ways, these shows are important as they remind society of why we have censorship rules in the first place. Perhaps containing the majority of television violence to one genre allows for the outlet that people need without polluting our screens with every sadistic detail. It’s important to have extremes in society to remind us why we need discipline and structure. Even though censorship can be limiting at times, it is an important part of modern culture because it can refine the relationship between the government and its people as well as its control over the constituents. It is often thought that censorship reflects ‘the moral tone of the country’ and that we are protected from the things that we cannot handle (Cohen, 1997:5). If South Park were to be censored, its unlikely audiences would see the same turmoil between evil (Cartman/Government) and the reflective moral voice of reason (Stan or Kyle/the people). And with governmental turmoil sweeping European countries, this comparison is more relevant now than ever before. When considering ‘censorship as a necessary evil’, there is always an exception to the rule. In this particular case of television violence, adult animation is that exception (Marshik, 2006:129). Sometimes in order for things to grow and progress within a genre, there needs to be limitations, however, animation have proved time and time again that no boundaries will stop the creative process.
Is it possible that we are becoming too protective over our children and the things that they watch? It is entirely possible that too much consideration has gone into a very basic issue. ‘Often in matters of censorship, the intended context is moot. When someone believes that it represents something entirely different perception becomes reality’ (Nuzum, 2001:2). Or maybe, we have overlooked South Park and shows like it simply because they provide the adult mind with stimulation, forgetting that it could be having a more extreme effect on the next generation. With the minds of our future leaders at risk, society is questioning censorship within television but is yet to make any real steps towards limiting the risqué content. Protested largely because it highlights many modern day issues that often go undiscussed on a public podium, South Park is the prime example of a long disputed show that has yet to face real consequences. And because of this, we have to accept that some formats are not subjected to the same rules and regulations that apply to all others.
Animation, with its comfortable aesthetic and familiar tones, lures audience into a secure world that deals openly and hilariously with the taboo matters in society. And although contested by world famous actors and world renowned politicians, the show has not slowed down since its launch. Censorship in prime time television has been increasing with many shows cutting out swear words, suggestive imagery and over sexualisation of characters. Whereas, after the watershed, programs predictably push the limits of acceptable behaviour on TV. Series’ like South Park paved the way for other ludicrous shows to continue to make leaps and bounds forward in the war against censorship. Battling governments and celebrities alike, South Park has used its popularity to stay alive and to contest the notion that audiences dislike the unspoken truths in society.
Bibliography
Browne, Ray and Browne, Pat (2001) The Guide to United States Popular Culture, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press
Cohen, Karl F (1997) Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers
Foerstel, Herbert (1997) Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia, Connecticut, Greenwood Press
Halsall, Alison (2008) ‘Bigger Longer & Uncut’ in Taking South Park Seriously, New York, State University of New York Press
Keller, James and Stratyner, Leslie (2009) ‘Introduction: An Unofficial Explanation and Brief History of South Park’ in The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Televisions Shocking Cartoon Series, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers
Marshik, Celia (2006) British Modernism and Censorship, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Martin, Kevin (2003) Violent Television Programming and its Impact on Children, Washington D.C, Diane Publishing Inc
Murtagh, Kevin (2007) ‘Blasphemous Humour in South Park’ in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing
Nielsen Media (2004/5) Nielsen Media Research, New York, Nielsen Media
Nuzum, Eric (2001) Parental Advisory, London, HarperCollins
Cartoon boys telling each other to do obscene things and to act in certain ways is considered dangerous to the thousands of impressionable children watching. And it is no surprise that only the adults are contesting the show. ‘An average American household has the television set turned on 8 hours and 11 minutes daily, and children watch on average between two and four hours of television every day’ (Nielsen Media, 2004/5:132). Children grow up wanting to do the things that they cannot do, and as a result many grow up watching explicit material either on TV or on Film. South Park has managed to escape criticism for a lot of their work because they have never deliberately targeted the show towards children. However, as a cartoon, the show immediately appeals to a younger audience and combined with the content, which would make their parents wince, South Park suddenly becomes a must see show amongst young teens. And although society is not as easily shocked as it once was, there is still a universal agreement that we should be a certain age before being able to watch certain material.
Parents and activist groups have found South Park to be a repeat offender in influencing bad behaviour in kids. ‘A majority of the investigations into the impact of media violence on children find that there is a high correlation between exposure to media violence and aggressive and at times violent behaviour’ (Martin 2003: 6). Obviously this is largely to do with the plot lines, language and imagery but some of this is partially to do with the continued representation of the main characters, a group of young boys. ‘Not a single character in South Park elicits a complicated emotional reaction from the viewer. Indeed, through the portrayal of repeated violent acts, the viewer becomes immune to the “reality” of this violence and is discouraged from registering any emotional reaction’ (Halsall 2009:33). Combined with the belief that viewers are being desensitised by television, merging explicit content with simple characters that do not use intellectual thought or consideration in many of their interactions, it’s understandable that our generation may be on a downward spiral towards inferior understanding of basic social situations.
Animation is a format that brings in large audiences and has done so since its beginning. In part because it is the simplest way of capturing the ‘hearts and imaginations of children and adults alike’ (Browne, Browne 2001:141). The rise of the adult cartoon in the last decade has pushed the genre to the forefront of everyone’s attention. And brings into question the reason behind its popularity. Cartoons provide comfort to adults as it reminds them of their childhood. Saturday morning cartoons, a childhood staple for many children across the world, provided the foundation for many of the shows on television today. Many American shows such as Bob’s Burgers and Family Guy use basic animated slapstick like the skits often seen in their predecessors over twenty years ago. The reason why these cartoons are popular amongst adults is because of this familiarity. They seek comfort in a format that hasn’t evolved its basic form in years. Yes, technology and its advancements has improved the quality significantly, but when stripped back to their core, shows like South Park could just as easily be a glorified Beavis and Butthead. Animation is able to avoid certain censorship issues because of this. The format doesn’t intimate its viewers, even with its sometimes provocative material. It sits almost docile in the background, unassuming and unobtrusive. So much so that animation only makes headlines when a show steps so far over the line that it would be impossible not to notice. Many institutions have attempted to change the content of animation over the years to be a controversial medium that is subjected to blacklisting, censorship and boycotts in an attempt to promote the popularity of the genre.
As afore mentioned, South Park manages to avoid repercussions for refusing to conform. In many ways, these shows are important as they remind society of why we have censorship rules in the first place. Perhaps containing the majority of television violence to one genre allows for the outlet that people need without polluting our screens with every sadistic detail. It’s important to have extremes in society to remind us why we need discipline and structure. Even though censorship can be limiting at times, it is an important part of modern culture because it can refine the relationship between the government and its people as well as its control over the constituents. It is often thought that censorship reflects ‘the moral tone of the country’ and that we are protected from the things that we cannot handle (Cohen, 1997:5). If South Park were to be censored, its unlikely audiences would see the same turmoil between evil (Cartman/Government) and the reflective moral voice of reason (Stan or Kyle/the people). And with governmental turmoil sweeping European countries, this comparison is more relevant now than ever before. When considering ‘censorship as a necessary evil’, there is always an exception to the rule. In this particular case of television violence, adult animation is that exception (Marshik, 2006:129). Sometimes in order for things to grow and progress within a genre, there needs to be limitations, however, animation have proved time and time again that no boundaries will stop the creative process.
Is it possible that we are becoming too protective over our children and the things that they watch? It is entirely possible that too much consideration has gone into a very basic issue. ‘Often in matters of censorship, the intended context is moot. When someone believes that it represents something entirely different perception becomes reality’ (Nuzum, 2001:2). Or maybe, we have overlooked South Park and shows like it simply because they provide the adult mind with stimulation, forgetting that it could be having a more extreme effect on the next generation. With the minds of our future leaders at risk, society is questioning censorship within television but is yet to make any real steps towards limiting the risqué content. Protested largely because it highlights many modern day issues that often go undiscussed on a public podium, South Park is the prime example of a long disputed show that has yet to face real consequences. And because of this, we have to accept that some formats are not subjected to the same rules and regulations that apply to all others.
Animation, with its comfortable aesthetic and familiar tones, lures audience into a secure world that deals openly and hilariously with the taboo matters in society. And although contested by world famous actors and world renowned politicians, the show has not slowed down since its launch. Censorship in prime time television has been increasing with many shows cutting out swear words, suggestive imagery and over sexualisation of characters. Whereas, after the watershed, programs predictably push the limits of acceptable behaviour on TV. Series’ like South Park paved the way for other ludicrous shows to continue to make leaps and bounds forward in the war against censorship. Battling governments and celebrities alike, South Park has used its popularity to stay alive and to contest the notion that audiences dislike the unspoken truths in society.
Bibliography
Browne, Ray and Browne, Pat (2001) The Guide to United States Popular Culture, Wisconsin, The University of Wisconsin Press
Cohen, Karl F (1997) Forbidden Animation: Censored Cartoons and Blacklisted Animators in America, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers
Foerstel, Herbert (1997) Free Expression and Censorship in America: An Encyclopedia, Connecticut, Greenwood Press
Halsall, Alison (2008) ‘Bigger Longer & Uncut’ in Taking South Park Seriously, New York, State University of New York Press
Keller, James and Stratyner, Leslie (2009) ‘Introduction: An Unofficial Explanation and Brief History of South Park’ in The Deep End of South Park: Critical Essays on Televisions Shocking Cartoon Series, North Carolina, McFarland & Company, Inc Publishers
Marshik, Celia (2006) British Modernism and Censorship, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Martin, Kevin (2003) Violent Television Programming and its Impact on Children, Washington D.C, Diane Publishing Inc
Murtagh, Kevin (2007) ‘Blasphemous Humour in South Park’ in South Park and Philosophy: You Know, I Learned Something Today, Oxford, Blackwell Publishing
Nielsen Media (2004/5) Nielsen Media Research, New York, Nielsen Media
Nuzum, Eric (2001) Parental Advisory, London, HarperCollins
No comments:
Post a Comment