The Secret of Successful Parody

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I said 'South Park fails as parody.'

My friend agreed and said 'South Park fails as parody where the Simpsons succeeds, because the Simpsons has a stronger political message.' I disagreed and said 'Let's hypothesise that the pornographer Annie Sprinkle intends her images where she dresses up in bondage to be taken as a parody of her industry. (The ones I'm thinking of are definitely intentionally 'silly' images, by the way.) She has a political message most women would go for, ie that women should be allowed to be sexual and take control of the pornography industry. But her stuff fails as parody because it only makes her look silly. If she wanted it to succeed, she would have to work harder and somehow contextualise it so that it makes the viewer of that kind of pornography look irredemiably silly. So, it's not the intentions of the parodist that count; it's the actual effect on the audience. Parody is more difficult than people suppose, and it's not enough just to imitate the thing you don't like in a silly way.' So what do you think is the secret of successful parody?

― satan's_donkey, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I sorta think you've got the whole thing wrong from the start, though, in assuming _South Park_ is by its own nature parodic. And _The Simpsons_ too, for that matter.

― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Shurely Ms Sprinkle, as woman onstage performing a work about pornography, looking silly = a successful parody of "her industry" (which I thought was acting, not porn?) (you could argue that looking silly is not neccessarily a difficult achievement) Secret of successful parody = must be funny, so therefore and forthwith South Park fails forevermore

― Mad Jack Cash, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

S's d is right about the nature of parody, but wrong about the nature of 'South Park', which is a parody of childhood.

― dave q, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

I think I disagree with the entire thesis here. Parody does not have to be funny. After all Scary Movie is by its very aim and nature a parody, but not actually very funny. Perhaps this is attempting a distinction between parody and pastiche which I always assumed was the difference between the specific and the general (on the genreral). Scary Movie is an attempted parody of Scream which itself was a pastiche of slasher movies.

South Park has its moments of parody and pastiche (MechaSteisand obviously), nevertheless is a touch more sophisticated thatn that. When the Simpsons started it was originally designed as a pastiche of American sitcoms until it settled down. Of course it has its moment of parody, just as it has its moments of slapstick, satire and pure darn jokes too.

― Pete, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

The original qn seems to be confusing the aims of parody with the aims of satire, too. Both are parasitic organisms but parody and pastiche seem cosier and non-hostile. Pete is right in that parody in itself is not funny - it's something in the comedy toolbox.

― Tom, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

her porn is a bit silly I guess http://www.gatesofheck.com/annie/index.html

― Mike Hanle y, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom Ewing should stop stealing my answers to serious questions. Pout, pout, pout.

― Dan Perry, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

Tom, I agree. I was making the (smaller) point that successful parody needs to be, well, funny. South Park is not (tho it has flashes of brilliance that suggest they need to get better voice actors (except Cartman of course))

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

o and satan's donkey check this oot

― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 9 October 2001 00:00 (twenty-three years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.