Genre parody is a creation that mimics the conventions and style of another work with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect or to create a commentary about the style itself. Parody works through its easily recognizable connections to genre tropes as it twists those tropes to deliver its message. It is similar to pastiche, which is a composition in another artist’s manner, without satirical intent, and will often have similar compositions to the genre its attempting to parody, but is exaggerated or changed in a way that highlights a genres key tropes.

As always, I’ll give an example from my favorite genre here, horror. Horror is such a saturated genre that it has been parodied from practically the beginning of film, as it can also take tropes from horror stories that had existed before then. In modern cinema, a significant portion of the horror genre relies on pastiche. Some of this horror branches out into the realm of parody and that’s where I’ll pull my great example of a horror genre parody from here. One of the most iconic and overdone genres within film, beginning with a group of college or high school youths starting a camping trip, or a get together somewhere in the wilderness, and which devolves into a bloodbath where all the students get separated and slowly die. This specific branch of slasher films really took off in 1980 with the film Friday the 13^th as its masked killer Jason snuck his way into nightmares all around the country. This was immediately followed by The Evil Dead (1981) which while not hugely popular at the time has become a cult classic for the genre. With a genre producing such iconic films as these it was only a matter before it began to be parodied in movies such as the Scream and Scary Movie series, and then much more directly represented recently with movies such as The Cabin in the Woods (2012).

Today however, I’ll give my what I believe to be one of the best parodies ever made Tucker and Dale vs Evil (2010)

First the film begins by playing into the traditional cabin slasher opening, however the change in this parody is that it shows both sides of the story. Usually this genre would open up with an ominous warning by some strange man to the group of youths as they encounter some strange omen foretelling of bad things to come. However, within the early scenes here we see that Tucker and Dale are just two hillbillies going on vacation but their rough look leads to misinterpretation.

 

http://soberingconclusion.com/movies/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Tucker-Dale-vs-Evil.jpg

The next big element that is parodied is that of the gruesome deaths that are usually part of this genre, and in combination the absolute uselessness of the majority of cast and authority figures in dealing with the supposed “threat”. In many of these camp slasher films, the youths are not only killed by the slasher, but the horrifying accidents which seem impossible. This is exaggerated with Tucker and Dale vs Evil as the kids literally throw themselves onto their own weapons and into wood chippers. This is a clear hyperbole playing on the lack of intelligence shown in many horror genre films as they try to further the plot their culling of side characters through often completely stupid ways.

http://horrorfreaknews.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/Tucker-and-Dale-vs-Evil-DI.jpg

Finally we see a parody within the conclusion as the film plays off the “creation of a killer” films that often come out as prequels to many of the major horror films. *spoilers* The final youth left and the “protagonist” on the youth’s side himself becomes the killer who locks away our main heroine, using her as bait to draw out the people he still believes are the real monsters. His disfiguration is an obvious play towards villains such as Jason and Freddy Kruger and the hostage situation he forces allows Dale to become our traditional hero and save the girl in the end.

http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/villains/images/5/5b/Tucker-and-Dale-vs-Evil_2010_0041.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140628062754

Any horror movie buff should enjoy this comedic genre parody and the fun it pokes at some of the more questionably realistic slasher elements in film, and many of the overused plot elements prevalent within this genre.

1. What are some pros and cons of ephemeral memorialization?

2. With recent advances in technology, how is memorialization changing to incorporate virtual space?

3. What are some other examples of ephemeral memorials? Do these examples use ephemerality out of necessity or as part of the memorial?

4.  How did the AIDS quilt and Eyes Wide Open establish ethos? Do you think that their respective strategies were effective?

5. What are the advantages of ephemeral memorials over permanent ones? Which one do you feel is more effective and why?

Starting with the first regularly scheduled broadcasts in 1928, television service evolved rapidly from limited regular scheduling in sports, music, and news, to a now extremely broad range of service, encompassing just about any genre you can think of, as long as you are willing to buy channels outside of basic programming. The biggest limiter however has always been formatting. Even with modern day digitization and widespread online distribution bringing television away from the TV, the actual make-up of television is the biggest self-imposed factor that still exists today.

During the major broadcasts network’s rule over television, the blocked schedule of thirty or sixty minute programs with breaks for advertising was very helpful in bringing consistency and predictability that allowed viewers to watch the programs they wanted to watch at specific times. This structured presentation of the shows locked the industry into a format. Large amounts of infrastructure was dedicated to this format and this stagnated further development of television formatting for the future. While television has branched out into other mediums in the current day, a significant amount of programming, especially the higher production value programming still follows the same time and structure constraints that were imposed during the network television broadcasting era.

When Youtube came around in 2005, it became a major content aggregator, and because of the ease of access from the everyday person a new type of content became prevalent. In the early days of Youtube we saw creators of short sketch comedy such as Smosh and Nigahiga dominate the view counts, with various viral videos sparking briefly into fame before being quickly forgotten. With this popularity Youtube began to find its audience as it grew into the powerhouse hosting service we know today.

Ignoring the fact that you can choose to watch whatever you want on Youtube, as opposed to the more programmed nature of television, Youtube also has capitalized off an interactivity that comes with commenting, and communicating in various ways directly with the creator of content. Youtube has allowed videos under ten minutes since its founding, and over time added more and more capability to its video hosting as it realized what viewers wanted. Taking a look at the most subscribed channels on Youtube as of early march, the top channels consist almost exclusively of music, video games, or comedy, whether it be sketch comedy, talk shows, or something like the Fine Brother’s “React” series.

Seeing this it is easy to see the market that Youtube has accessed which television has not been able to due to limitations. While MTV was very popular at a time, advancement of technology has made music more readily available and viewers can afford to be more picky, so music programming has lost a significant audience. Lack of interactivity and extremely varied timings and personalities within the video games market has also kept television from encroaching in that field. Finally, we see the last time constraint in the comedy department as Youtube has capitalized on videos that are too short for regular programming, or even that contain clips from television itself, highlighting the most entertaining parts, such as TheEllenShow’s broadcast.

Television is not only limited to the basic broadcasting channels, and in fact is easily accessible in many places online, so it fully has the capability to breach into the realm of many Youtube shows that exist today in order to satisfy consumers looking for quicker and more focused content. As far as I can see there will always be a significant place for standard television programming with the viewing public, but as consumers needs change I believe the lines will become blurred between Youtube style content hosting and whatever television evolves into, at least if it wants to remain relevant in a rapidly evolving technology driven society.

When it comes to popular opinion on politics in the United States, partisanship between our two major parties has created a rift when it comes to media coverage. With this polarization of consumers, networks are influenced by both the companies that own them, and the fight to keep viewership high. The result is that mainstream media holds significant sway over the public’s consumption of information regarding politicians and those around them, but it will almost always be met by a conflicting vision from the other side.

In this way, Hillary Clinton, a Democrat who has been a target of media review for many years now, has a pretty tight control over her image with about half the country, and fairly little control over the rest. It wasn’t always like this though, as before Hillary was such a powerful figure in the U.S. Government, her image was determined (in the media) by her relation to others, such as her marriage to Bill Clinton. While she was a successful lawyer in her own right, she didn’t have anywhere near the personal influence she does today, or the backers to help her create a media image, and therefore was subjected to whatever spin they wished to put on the story of the day.

Now however, as Hillary runs for president, her media control is very noticeable. While some things have stuck from when she first started being covered, such as being called “Hillary” or “HRC” among other things, her campaign media managers actively work to develop her image, be it on social media, what she wears, or even what interviewers are allowed to ask her many news stations. One of her top donors, Time Warner Cable, who has donated over $400,000 to her campaign, owns CNN. With her new large support network and backing of the DNC, it is easy to see the micromanaging of her image that occurs.

For example, in CNN politics a poll was issued after a debate asking about the victor, and online respondents answered that Sanders had won 81% to Hillary’s 13%. This was quickly removed and replaced with an opinion piece titled “Clinton triumphs in Democrat debate as rivals compete to lose.” showing a clear spin from what could be considered the “public’s opinion” (although online polls are subject to brigading, especially from the younger voting group that supports Bernie).

Jumping over to Fox News, we see the opposite side of this. Regardless of what Hillary does, it will only bring up the negative, as we see from its coverage of her in almost exclusively speculation about her e-mail scandal. While Hillary can control her own image in public, and a portion of the media’s coverage of her in a positive way, at this point in time a person’s public image is created by such a large variety of sources that there is no hope for influencing them all.

Overall, I believe Hillary has a much higher amount of agency in the creation of her own public image than almost any other person in America, but with this visibility and power comes the detractors who will always exist on the opposite side of any vision she tries to create.