Television has limited itself greatly by not having user agency for viewing like YouTube does. When an entire “library” of media is accessible at any time or mood, this is very convenient and attractive for viewers. By staying on a regulated programming that is timed and not user friendly, television has limited itself. YouTube however offers “a significant shift in agency (producer-controlled flow as distinct from user-generated flow), and a shift from flow as default to flow as a condition that requires active selection” (Uricchio 33).

Also, YouTube’s collaborative aspect of encouraged participation and recommendation based off of previous viewings is very convenient for viewers. YouTube “has launched a number of initiatives that seek to restore notions of collectivity” (Uricchio 34). With features like the comment section that encourages audiences to vocalize their opinions on the work, as well as, inspire reaction videos to those comments. Not to mention, videos are sharable and connect people that have common interests like people who enjoy watching cat videos. Even “YouTube’s collaborative annotation system enables users to invite people to create speech bubbles, notes and spotlights on their videos” (Uricchio 34). Now much like concerts for musicians, YouTube has thousands of meet ups with popular “Youtubers” and their fans to actual conferences like VidCon. The interactivity of Youtube is truly unmatchable.

The thing television had going for itself in 2009 when William Uricchio wrote this essay “The Future of a Medium Once Known as Television,” was its unique access to liveliness. Uricchio wrote that “if one searches on YouTube for live television, one is prompted with subcategories such as ‘bloopers, mistakes, accidents, gone wrong, and fights’—indications that liveness is understood by YouTube’s minions as an excess of signification that cannot be cleaned up, edited away or reshot” (32). However, inaccessibility to live content on YouTube is no longer the case. Now even YouTube has live showings from news, to gaming, to sports, etc. 

It seems the television industry has greatly limited itself, and YouTube is utilizing this as advantage to gain more clients. Youtube’s “notion of liveness is one of simulation and “on demand”; its embrace of flow is selective and user-generated; and its sense of community and connection is networked and drawn together through recommendation, annotation and prompts” (Uricchio 35).

However, this article is assuming that streaming is not a form of television. Streaming sites, like Netflix, were not popular when this article was first released, yet now, streaming sites could very likely replace traditional television all together. I would argue that streaming is an evolved form of television that has occurred due to the necessary demand.

Consumers want the accessibility of YouTube that is much like a library that one can easily select from. Though Netflix does not yet have live viewing, YouTube does, leaving traditional television as unnecessary. The sense of community that YouTube capitalizes on is not the same as it for streaming sites. Streaming sites’ communities have come less from interactive set ups created by the site, and instead from the limited quantity of available content. It is not uncommon to hear from a friend “have you seen this show on Netflix?” that starts a conversation and sense of community. It is so common to watch Netflix in today’s society, that even the term “Netflix and chill” refers to an interest in having sex with someone. It is in this new developed form of “television” that these networks will keep up with “consumers’ changing needs.” Who knows maybe even streaming sites like Netflix will one day have a comment section?

Genre parody is a text that utilizes “the codes of a genre at the same time… self-consciously parod[ies] those codes” (Sturken and Cartwright 329). The humor of genre parody functions by the viewers’ acknowledgement of the distinct variations between the original text and the new text. Genre parody does not mean for audiences to digest the parodied context in a serious reflective manner, but rather playfully enjoy “both the old text and its parodic remake” (Sturken and Cartwright 330).

Amy Schumer’s television show, Inside Amy Schumer, parodies various works of culture from music videos to movie styles to simply social expectations. In a clever and hilarious sketch, “Girl, You Don’t Need  Makeup,” Schumer makes fun of the boy band music video genre. She particularly parodies boy band One Direction and the unrealistic messages this group sends to young women.

In an original One Direction music video “What Makes You Beautiful,” four teenage looking pop stars sing to their love interests, or women in general, about recognizing their own natural beauty. They use lyrics like “you’re insecure, don’t know what for” and “don’t need make-up to cover up being the way that you are is enough.” In a variety of the One Direction music videos, all the boys have a similar uniform of short sleeve button up shirts, tshirts, maybe a vest, and skinny jeans. Throughout their videos they give a air of forced positivity and silliness. Also, the video is shot in a clear pop boy band music video style with a catchy tune, fast cuts, impromptu choreography, and close ups of the individuals singing and flirting to the camera.

One Direction’s “What Makes You Beautiful” on the left, and Inside Amy Schumer’s “Girl, You Don’t Need Makeup” on the right, both show a boy band member talking seductively to the video’s love interest on how she should see herself. What Schumer’s video highlights by mimicking this is that both boys, whether complimenting or criticizing her, are telling the girl how to be, something she should do for herself.

These two shots capitalize on the boys’ silliness. The images look like they could be from the same video, but the image on the left is the parody group and the image on the right is One Direction.

Boy band music videos have identical style with all the performers wearing similar clothes while dancing simultaneously. Top left is Backstreet Boys, top right ‘N Sync, bottom left is One Direction, bottom right is Amy Schumer’s unnamed parody boy band.  

Close ups of the various boy band performers singing to the camera. 

Amy Schumer makes light of all of these boy band genre tropes in her video. The “What Makes You Beautiful” lyrics state “you’re insecure, don’t know what for,” and Amy’s video suggests women are insecure because society and media tells women they are not good enough. Similarly, the parodic performers in her video sing “Magazines say that you’re wack. Girl don’t believe them.” However the parody shows, once Amy is empowered and takes off her makeup as the seemingly supportive boy band suggests, the boys do not actually like what they see. The boy band recognizes and states that they prefer women when they have makeup on. One Direction’s song states “being the way you are is enough,” but Schumer’s video points out, through genre parody, that men and media do not actually feel this way. 

1. How does a moving camera bring about ethical questions between artist, subject, and observer?

2. Why is only image and noise necessary to conceive a film and not print, speech, or music?

3. What are the different types of codes used in films, and how do they interplay in order to create a deeper understanding of a scene?

4. Why are the “limitations that the frame imposes” and the “composition of the image within the frame” so important in the perception of scenes?

5. In your opinion, determine three codes that are the most important to static film frames from (aspect ratio, open/closed forms, frame/geographic/depth planes, depth perception, proximity and proportion, intrinsic properties of color, form, line etc….)

– Sophia & Pearl

Hillary Clinton does not have control over her public image, only the image she shares with those close enough to truly know her. Clinton’s public image is exactly that, public, and once in the hands of the public and those hired to engineer it positively or negatively, her image will never be entirely her own. Even something as simple as her name is manipulated. In the nineties, Hillary was known as Hillary Rodham Clinton, these days as a president candidate Clinton known as just Hillary Clinton. However, Shawn J. Parry-Giles, the author of the article, Meditating Hillary Rodham Clinton, identifies her even as HRC due to this ambiguity. He recognizes that the reason the public has such a strong opinion on her public image is because of “‘her refusal to be silenced’” (Parry-Giles 375). Hillary’s vocal attitude keeps her thoughts current in the public eye, although this can be problematic for her. Clinton, like any person, changes her beliefs and opinions as she absorbs new information and grows as a professional, however, whilst this was naturally happening Clinton has been in the public eye. The complication with this, is that by changing her ideals, the public assumes she is a different person along with these ideals or even a person who is unstable in their point of view. This can reflect poorly on her public image. However since, Hillary Clinton is now a presidential candidate once again, she has a task force team of professionals who are meant to curate her image in a positive light. Now, it may seem that this is a reflection of Hillary’s real beliefs and personality, but more likely, the image that her associates display of her is the one that will gain her the most votes. This push and pull of perspectives on who Hillary Clinton really is can be conflicting. One day the public sees her as a traditional wife who believes marriage is only sacred between a man and woman, the next she is the victim of a cheating scandal caused by her husband, and then the next day she appears to be an independent working mother who supports gay marriage and is running for president. Even further, Hillary Clinton’s image depends on who is absorbing it. For example, a feminist may view Hillary Clinton as a great role model when she runs for president, while a patriarchal person may view this as out of line or improper for a “lady.” Despite these very contrasting identities, the reality is Hillary Clinton is a human who has had many perspectives and even identities overtime. Yet, society likes to place icons, like Hillary Clinton, in boxes, or typecasts, in order to understand their unique significance. So even though Clinton is a complex human like the rest of us, due to her status, she will always struggle to have control of the image placed upon her. Her image may not be her own, but this may allow her a amount of privacy and security in herself, because she does not have her true vulnerable self in the public eye but rather an image constructed by multiple unique sources.