Archer is currently one of the best shows on television. This is not an opinion, this is a fact. It’s witty, it’s funny, and, quite fortuitously, it is also a prime example of a genre parody.

First though, a brief introduction on what a genre parody is and how it works. A genre parody is, well, just that. It is a parody of a certain genre. More formally, for those that appreciate a more academic explanation, a parody “…is a work created to imitate, make fun of, or comment on an original work, its subject, author, style, or some other target, by means of satiric or ironic imitation.” (Wikipedia) It works when pastiche is “…engaged in reworking elements of the past…” (Sturken & Cartwright)

It functions by being ironic. On the one hand, it operates within the codes of the genre and obeys the rules and conventions, but at the same time, it very self consciously draws attention to to those codes and more specifically, the parody’s mockery of them.

Archer is a great example of a work that parodies a genre, specifically, the super over clichéd spy thriller genre. Other films also parody the genre, but in very subtle and subdued ways. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind comes to mind.

But Archer has no time for such subtleties. It makes no attempt to hide its parody of the genre and because of its format as a half hour comedy and as an adult animated series, the biting sarcasm works to its benefit. As a TV show, Archer is able to take itself less seriously than a film might, and as such, it can take bigger risks in how far it goes in pushing the envelope. The episode Honeypot in particular, is very obvious in parodying the genre it works in.

Sterling Archer himself is the perfect parody of a secret agent. In theory he checks every box: handsome, tall, dark hair, fit, alcoholic, attachment problems, serial womanizer, etc. However, the show is very self-conscious in the way that it manipulates those things. In a way, it works with them but in another way, it works against them as well. In this episode in particular, Archer is tasked to seduce a dangerous foreign agent but there’s a catch. That former agent is also a male, and Archer must pretend to be gay, which is a whole other conversation on its own. The setting of the show too is a statement. It is “intentionally ill-defined” says creator Adam Reed. The costumes and physical setting appear to be straight out of the ‘60s, the peak of spy culture, but the show makes some pop culture references that would seemingly place the show closer to the present.

The show still deals with the narratives present in most spy flicks, international treason, preservation of democracy, high stakes murders, it does so through a completely different lens. Rather than taking the issues seriously, it simply uses them as a rhetorical tool to poke fun at a genre which, at times, takes itself way too seriously.

If you’re still reading this, you should stop, put down everything, and binge watch 5 episodes of Archer. 

I believe, sincerely, that we are witnessing the end of television as it has been known. In its place, a new kind of ‘TV’ is arriving; one that is infinitely more interactive and allows for a much higher degree of participation from the audience. YouTube and Netflix in particular are really challenging the perception of what television even means nowadays. If it doesn’t adapt, it will be left behind entirely.

Television, by its very nature, is not an interactive experience. While it is still a cooler medium than film, audience participation when it comes to watching TV is still not that high. Most people that watch TV tune in and out, and a lot of people turn the TV on just for noise. In a time where Web 2.0 and even 3 is upon us, the television industry is seemingly left behind, trapped by limitations that it has imposed on itself.

Television today basically follows the same format that it did when it was first invented. This means that TV is old. Really old. It adheres to the concept of ‘Flow’ as Uricchio describes it, “a temporally sequenced stream of program units constantly issues forth from the programmer, and audiences may dip in and out as they choose.” In plain English, this just means that the TV plays shows in a certain order, and audiences can choose to pay attention or not.

TV is also trapped in a box, sometimes literally. Where YouTube can be enjoyed by millions of users anywhere, on basically any internet enabled device, TV is still limited by its physical unit for many people who can’t afford to pay for mobile services. Even the ones that do are met with a limited selection of what they are able to watch from mobile devices.

YouTube on the other hand, as William Uricchio argues, “is a creature of the moment…” that embraces a “mashup culture.” (Uricchio) It is the embodiment of Web 2.0, an interactive experience in which users can participate and take an active role in the conversation, rather than just looking at static web pages. YouTube allows its users to upload their own content and comment and interact with other users about other people’s content. It is not beholden to the same, somewhat antiquated notion of ‘flow’ and instead, allows its users to pick what they watch and when they watch it.

In addition, YouTube is able to be accessed on a mobile platform by a larger number of people because it doesn’t require any special subscription or added fees. Interestingly though, YouTube is now bringing the fight with TV back to the TV. In 2009, which is ages ago, YouTube announced YouTube for Television, which allowed for YouTube to be accessed on much larger television screens, which is one advantage that it had maintained over YouTube. No more though, as smart TVs begin flooding the market and Internet abilities growing.

If TV is to stay relevant and even alive, it must adapt and become a less structured, more participatory medium. If it doesn’t, things like YouTube and Netflix will fill in the gap and relegate television to nothing more than a history lesson.

1. Do you think that the ‘language of film’ is a universal language or one that is more culturally contingent?
2. If you believe that as a language, film is more culturally contingent, how/why do you think that culture affects your reading of film and images?
3. Do you agree with the Monaco reading that film is not actually a language? Why or why not? If it is not a language, how is it used to communicate?
4. What about film do you think makes it “hard to explain”?
5. How do filmmakers’ choices affect our connotative abilities/ views on the subject?

-Christian & David

A question posed in class was this: How much control does Hillary Clinton have over her image? In a word, none. The short answer is that the media controls pretty much everything, and an individual has very little control over the way that they are portrayed. It would be easy enough to leave it there, but then I wouldn’t have a 500-word blog post so I’ll elaborate. The media, news sources in particular, craft their message very specifically in order to get you, the viewer, to adopt a certain viewpoint, or cater to a viewpoint that you already hold. If not for that reason, then they do it to boost their bottom line. Either way, those news sources, which by the way, 90% of which are controlled by just 6 corporations, dictate how a person or issue is portrayed. They do this by using a variety of techniques, a few of which I’ll discuss later. In the case of old ‘HRC’, a relatively small issue, her comment about baking and staying home, was blown into an otherworldly scale, which tarnished her image. Of course, the former First Lady did what she could to minimize the damage, but unsurprisingly, any coverage of her apology attempts was minimal in comparison to “Cookie-Gate.” When you think about it, it really is quite sad how little control people have over their own image. If the media wants to put you in a bad light, they certainly will and you can’t do anything about it.

Among the many different techniques used by news sources is repetition. Repetition, as we learned in the article, has the ability to construct truths. For example, if a news outlet makes an outlandish claim about a person, people may not believe them the first time the story is aired. But, if that same story is repeated over and over again, then perhaps picked up by another news outlet, people start to think “Huh, maybe it’s true after all.” Nothing about the story itself is changed; it is just repeated multiple times, which somehow gives it more credibility. If the media can persuade millions of people that what they are saying is truth simply by saying it over and over again, it is a little daunting to think of what they are able to accomplish with a whole arsenal of rhetoric at their disposal.

I think that we, as a younger generation of viewers who have been exposed to this kind of manipulation, can do a better job of recognizing this when it happens but without a good education in visual rhetoric, quite a lot gets through without us ever realizing it. That’s why I believe it is so crucial to check your sources before you believe anything to be fact. The saying that numbers don’t lie is a naïve statement; it is only too easy to hide behind facts and figures because people rarely check to see where those numbers came from. The mainstream media is powerful, no doubt, but as educated viewers we have the ability to take some of that power back by being vigilant when watching or reading news. As Jon Stewart said in his final address on ‘The Late Show’, “The best defense against bulls**t is vigilance. So if you smell something, say something.” Couldn’t have said it better myself.