Team America: World Police
2004, United States
Director: Trey Parker
Screenplay: Pam Brady, Trey Parker, Matt Stone
Story: Brady, Parker, and Stone
It’s a truism in film that comedy is harder than drama; as Bob Dylan said, “it takes a lot to laugh, it takes a train to cry.” And yet, why do I feel that most people laugh relatively easily? There are certain things in Team America that most people find funny, but I do not. The way Kim Jong Il, the movie’s chief antagonist, pronounces “L’s” as “R’s” I do not find to be funny. The some three-minute song built upon this comedic device, “I’m So Ronely,” doesn’t even force a grin.
Matt Stone and Trey Parker have their original moments, both in Team America and their other creations. But generally their approach to humor is similar to most mainstream comedians (think Will Ferrell), believing that inappropriateness is equivalent to comedy. Look, I like inappropriateness just as much as the next guy, but you have to DO something with it. There is a scene where Team America’s leader demands that a team member perform guy-on-guy sexual favors to earn his trust. This is worth a chuckle, perhaps, but then the team member proceeds to do just what was requested, taking up another minute or two of screen time. Most people think the joke of “seeing” the act stands on its own, but I disagree. The scene ultimately amounts to seeing something inappropriate, and there’s nothing interesting or clever about that. Whether you think that’s a question of personal taste, sophistication, or snobbery I leave up to you.
A lot of Team America relies on the novelty of puppets doing ridiculous or foul things. There is no attempt to hide the strings, for example, which is somewhat comical. There is a scene of puppet sex, which was also done a year previous in the smarter and funnier Broadway play Avenue Q. A few jokes are pretty amusing, such as the recurring reference to “acting” like it’s some sort of special power. But the satirical aspects of the film fall well short of the mark, oftentimes because the parody is so thin as to be imperceptible. For example, I can’t figure out why I’m supposed to laugh at Michael Moore blowing himself up to take out the Team America base. What is the satire here? That Michael Moore is really liberal? This is the kind of scenario I might have thought up in homeroom in Junior High, complete with a sketch in my notebook. Actually, it sounds funnier under those circumstances, but as an adult film-goer I expect a little more.
Style: 4
The puppets are surprisingly uninteresting. You might think the creators were trying to parody Thunderbirds, but instead it comes off as an homage. At least the use of puppets is theoretically fairly fresh, and the film has a look like few others.
Substance: 3
In a similar vein to the comments above, the story of Team America seems like it’s trying to be a satire. But rather than exaggerate Hollywood plot devices, Team America simply follows their beaten path – since when was emulation sufficient for parody? Generally, I found most of the humor to be pretty uninspired, but a few clever bits keep things afloat.
Overall: 4
I think comedy is tough, and Team America has the added disadvantage that it tries to unabashedly do nothing but. There’s a good premise somewhere in this movie, and some genuine humor to be found, but most of it didn’t do much for me.
September 12, 2008 at 3:46 pm
The humor behind Team America is not at all dissimilar from the humor behind South Park, the “other” Stone & Parker major “franchise”, in that both derive hilarity from their shock humor. And that’s all. Neither purports to be satirical or whimsical, engaging or humorous; instead, the comic value from both of these productions emerges from the violation of the taboo, the performance of things considered so inappropriate (such as a 4-minute theme song on “Uncle Fucking” in South Park) or so profane (such as the aforementioned gay sex scene from Team America) that the mere fact that they linger on far longer than a mere stray thought in a polluted mind is what commands both awe and respect. Reading your review, I get the sense that you simply suffered from misset expectations: that somehow Team America was going to be any different from South Park in any of its dimensions. Part of what makes Team America so good is just how well Stone and Parker follow their shock-comedy formula so well. By that token, you might find many of Lewis Black’s crude humor unpalatable to your refined senses, but at least he offers satire and wit, something that you mistakenly thought was going to be present in this stunner-flick.
September 12, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I don’t think this is a question of expectations. I expected the South Park sense of humor, and that’s what I got. The fact remains that I prefer different types of humor, and that’s what I tried to rationalize in my review.
The thing is, I really do think Stone and Parker thought they were doing satire in this movie. It *seems* like there are satirical elements: the Thunderbirds puppets, the cheesy Hollywood story elements, the parodying of actors’ activism. It’s just not biting enough, and as you say we’re left with shock humor as the main point of the movie.
But, you know, aren’t we all kind of past shock humor, as a culture? Hasn’t it all pretty much been done? What was so shocking in Team America? A guy giving another guy head? Is it really that difficult to think up something like that? Man, I don’t know. Apparently a lot of people love this stuff, so maybe I’m missing the boat.
BTW, what does Team America get on the Juan Scale?
September 13, 2008 at 3:13 am
I agree with Jayson’s review for the most part (!!). In particular, your sentiment that inappropriateness without creativity is boring is spot on. That was exactly my problem with this movie, and I would contrast it with many South Park episodes (and the movie), where in most cases they either choose a current topic and push/break its limits, or they couch inappropriateness in something unexpected or stylish (think: much of the music and lyrics from the Movie). Interesting that you mention Will Ferrell, as I react to most of his standard fare in the same way. His isn’t full on inappropriateness and relies on blatant demonstrations of stupidity or irrationality, but it’s done in much the same way. Most of the moments in Semi-pro, for instance, are Ferrell acting outrageous just for the sake of it, without a real punchline. It gets tiresome.
September 15, 2008 at 11:52 am
Again, I just think your expectations just weren’t in line with the reality of this movie. South Park had no more depth than Team America, as evidenced by spontaneous “Uncle Fucking” songs (which were no more a commentary about film or music than “Blame Canada” was some how a commentary on U.S.-Canadian Relations) and totally arbitrary Satan-Saddam Sex-Slavery relationship. Both films use the same sort of shock/slapstick humor to bring across their purpose. South Park episodes and the movie only ever choose a topic for the convenience of stringing together a narrative of exquisite shock-humor laced with delicious profanity; these are functions for the pure convenience of its delivery.
On the Juan Scale, Team America gets 2 and 1/2 Stars. It set out to accomplish one mission — to shock audiences with ridiculous South Park-style crude sexual and violent humor during a time when most Americans had become humorless about 9/11 and the War on Terror aftermath — and it accomplishes it to a large extent. But it is nothing more than that.
September 16, 2008 at 10:45 am
It seems to me that the expectations argument is a bit of a red herring. How should it matter what I expected of the movie if I make a fair-minded, well-reasoned argument in my final assessment? And for the record, I really didn’t expect some kind of Whedon-esque, comedic tour de force out of “Team America: World Police.”
The fundamental difference is how much value you place in shock humor. Lots of people think it’s great, I think it’s (mostly) boring. The irony is that I absolutely love one of the standard bearers of shock comedy, Howard Stern. But I don’t love him for his shock tendencies, such as his “It’s Just Wrong” game show; rather, I think he’s a witty, magnetic personality, and is at his most entertaining when he’s simply talking.
An example of shock humor I enjoy would be the first Jackass movie. The scenarios they come up with, such as repeatedly launching fireworks in confined areas to annoy someone, are comparatively clever and stylishly executed.
September 17, 2008 at 5:44 pm
I humbly submit that you simply don’t like shock humor, and instead try to find wit where none exists. That Howard Stern is witty there can be no deny, but that wit stems not from his shock humor; instead, his art of satire presents itself when he goes on a reflective tirade or interjects his shock-humor with political or social perspectives. Neither South Park nor Team America do that sort of thing, because – unlike Howard Stern – they aren’t trying to appeal, one way or the other, to satirists.
That said, that you like Jackass and not Team America just doesn’t make sense. Is it the subjective absence of style in Team America and your arbitrary judgment that it exists in Jackass the sole criterion that catapults the latter into your good graces, whereas the former just wallows in astonished abandonment?
September 17, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“I humbly submit that you simply don’t like shock humor, and instead try to find wit where none exists.”
I’d say you’re mostly right on the first count, but the second doesn’t follow from that. Permit me the insolence of rewriting your sentence:
“I humbly submit that you simply don’t like (most) shock humor, and that’s why you didn’t enjoy Team America. And I am a doo doo brain.”
There. Isn’t that better?
“That said, that you like Jackass and not Team America just doesn’t make sense. Is it the subjective absence of style in Team America and your arbitrary judgment that it exists in Jackass the sole criterion that catapults the latter into your good graces, whereas the former just wallows in astonished abandonment?”
No, it’s exactly for the reason I stated in my post – I found the scenarios in Jackass to be interesting. You know, stuff I hadn’t seen before. And while Team America has its share of that, mostly it is just cursing and crude humor expected to stand on its own.
(Speaking of cursing, curse that Josh – has he left me to fend for myself!??)
September 17, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Blasphemy! Regardless, I think your scoring of Team America inserted way too much subjectivity for it to be reflective of the film’s actual objective value.
September 17, 2008 at 7:29 pm
I could possibly be persuaded to give it a 4 overall, which would make it only a tick below average.
September 17, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Seriously? I think the movie is better than simply “average” (or a “2″ on the Juan-Scale). While I wouldn’t go as far as calling it “great”, it’s at the very least a “good” movie for what it was designed to do! Were I using a 9-point system, I would’ve shot for a 5 or maybe even 6.
September 18, 2008 at 12:22 pm
No mention whatsoever of: “Matt Damon.”
Easily the funniest part of the whole movie.
September 18, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Hey, I used it as the picture.
I can’t decide if “Matt Damon!” is really funny or just stupid.
September 18, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The fact that you “can’t decide whether “Matt Damon!” is really funny or just stupid” tells me that you just didn’t get the humor behind Team America!
By the Power of Majuanas, ’tis a glorious film, easily worth 2 and 1/2 stars on the Juan-Scale!
September 19, 2008 at 7:54 am
Yeah, you’re probably right. “Matt Damon!” is pretty funny.
Other parts I enjoyed were lines like “use your ACTING to fool the terrorists!” and “Pearl Harbor sucked…and I miss you.”
October 12, 2008 at 4:00 pm
“Matt Damon!” is great, as are the hilariously awful cheesy power ballads. While nowhere near as great or groundbreaking as the South Park movie, unless you count the puppet sex scene, it has enough “middle-finger-to-every-recent-Bruckheimer/Bay flick” moments to merit at least a 5, or 5.5.