YouTube - Team America Finale Speech

PhatGun (3 months ago) HAHAHAHAHHAHAHA SO TRUE!!! Tomster22 (19 hours ago) Neo-Cons = Dicks, Peacenicks = Pussies, Islamo-Fascists = Assholes AerisRocks (2 months ago) lol! Thats a great metaphor they used...assholes want us to shit on everything and dicks fuck assholes lmfao, great scene.

This post has been brewing in me ever since I first saw Team America when it came out in 2004. Thanks to you, tube, it is now ready to be poured into the pint glass of this blog. Every time I see the final speech, I find it extremely funny but even the very first time I realized that it is a perfect showcase for the power of conceptual blending in larger narratives. Here's the YouTube clip followed by transcript:

We're reckless arrogant stupid dicks. And the Film Actors Guild are pussies. And Kim Jong Il is an asshole. Pussies don't like dicks because pussies get fucked by dicks, but dicks also fuck assholes. Assholes who just wanna shit on everything. Pussies may think that they can deal with assholes their way, but the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is that sometimes they fuck too much, or fuck when it isn't appropriate, and it takes a pussy to show 'em that. But sometimes pussies get so full of shit that they become assholes themselves. Because pussies are only an inch and a half away from assholes. I don't know much in this crazy crazy world. But I do know that if you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're gonna have our dicks and our pussies all covered in shit. http://www.teamamerica.craptv.com/

This is an amazing progression of imagery: from purely idiomatic/'metaphorical'/schematic to visual/'literal'/rich image imagery. While all the time aware of its metaphorical nature the aptness of the metaphor is buttressed by the anatomical accuracy of the rich image. Some time ago, I actually searched for more reactions to this speech online and the results confirmed that audiences integrated this "construction" in a variety of ways consistent with its complex conceptual structure. The complexity, however, also predictably, led to partial integration explicitly (and it would interesting to ask to what extent there was a subconscious full integration). Personally, to engage in a bit of 19th century introspective psychology, I can wallow in rich integrated constructions (I'm vaguely referring to construction grammar here) for hours and hours replaying them in my head - kind of like the Necker cube mentioned in my previous blog posts - viewing all its possible permutations that can never be in my consciousness all at once. And that gives me an immense satisfaction - similar to playing Tetris for a long time and then closing your eyes. It also reminds of when I was in primary school and my friends and I would go see a movie which we would then replay scenes from on our way home. I believe that some of the comments on Your Tube (and the very existence of YouTube, really) suggest that my introspection reflects a more common trait of human cognition and narrative.

The power of this analogy is also evident in that it was able to subvert (for many) the otherwise very cautionary message the film was trying to send on war and American view of the world. Many felt that the film was ultimately trying to say that ‘despite some of the folly of the more zealous patriots among us, America’s heart is in the right place, and even through we are sometimes a bit clumsy about it, we are doing what is necessary’ - which is very much consistent with the message of neo-conservative interventionism. Whereas on balance most of the film’s imagery was a much stronger critique of the interventionism. Even when the liberal opposition is parodied it is more through the eyes of conservative parodies rather than a direct jab. However, the potential power of that film was undermined by this speech (repeated twice in the film).

Now, maybe I’m just paranoid, but as tortured as that analogy is, I swear I detect a note of Republicanism. No wonder Bush got a free pass. http://www.synthesis.net/movies/feature.php?mid=474

It sounds quite weird out of context, but the paragraph about dicks, pussies and assholes was the craziest analogy I’ve ever heard, mainly because it actually made sense. http://shanest.journalspace.com

Even red state Americans get skewered in Team America. the Team America gang may be the heros of the film, but they sure screw up everywhere they go, blowing things up right and left that they are trying to “save.” Actually, the film gives the best rationale for voting for Bush that I’ve seen. I’d call it the mottto of the South Park Republicans:

[caution, bad language, spoiler ahead]

“America may be a big dick, and might sometimes screw the pussies, but only a dick can screw the assholes. And if America doesn’t screw the assholes, they’re gonna shit on everyone, the pussies and the dicks.”

Words to live by… http://www.patiopundit.com/archives/cat_the_war.html

My favorite part was the dick, asshole, pussy analogy … actually made a lot of sense! http://boards.billmaher.com/

Serisouly, is there any better analogy than the “Asshole, Pussies, and Dicks”???? http://www.prowrestlingforum.com/forum/

These comments (found on the internet a few weeks after the UK release of the film) are good examples of what sorts of reactions this kind of construction might elicit and suggest that I am probably right about the subversion. And others seem to agree:

When I saw it, I don't think most of the people in the theater got it. They were all chearing when the different actors were getting killed and groaned during the cock-sucking scene. I think they even liked that silly $1.05 country song. Ha ha. http://iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=101378

I'm hoping to write this into a paper. (Have been for a while.) Right now all I have is a collection of quotes and a title: Doves and Cocks: Symbolic activity and metaphor construction in spontaneous political discourse. We'll see.

Finally a comment on hypostasis (it seems to crop up a lot in these difficult hermeneutic times). What is striking is the level of deep narrative analysis that can be seen on internet forums (I’ve written about it in my Czech articles on TV series like Buffy as the new novel). Even the most partisan comments (of the ‘watch out, behind you’ variety) contain an awareness of the narrative structure but they come alongside very sharp insights. In the comments above, I mostly (but no exclusively) chose the former but there were also many examples of the latter. For instance, those Southparkologists who posted the similar speech from an episode of South Park and compared the two. ‘Nuff said.