Genre Parody is pastiche (an imitation that announces itself as such and involves combining elements from other sources – Richard Dyer)  that fits into the many forms of rhetoric, social and cultural forms of media entertainment, and self expression. It is most recognizable in the visual mediums of film and television, though is also prominent in music as well (The Lonely Island). In cinema, genre parody deliberately makes fun of the conventions and commonalities that the audience associates with a specific genre such as Action or Sci-Fi. And according to the Postmodernism reading, parodies are working in two levels, participating in the codes of a genre as the same time they are parodying these same codes.

Unfortunately, our era has to experience the self-absorbed materialistic trash that Western culture has a deep love/hate relationship with. Reality television. Personally, I detest reality television but still find myself staring at the mass of pixels for much longer than expected when I flip through channels. 

Although Comedy Central’s Kroll Show isn’t something to rave about, and is not wholly a genre parody, some of Nick Kroll’s characters are sadly accurate representations of other television shows and real people that fill some of your cable provider’s time slots. The Kroll show is comprised of immature comedy skits with the full intention of parodying television shows and celebrities of the 21st century, and the weirdly accurate delivery of dialogue and personality traits we assume a specific type of person would have. Specifically noting the referee character and dudes with ponytails. Unlike other sketch comedy shows such as Key and Peele, Kroll Show falls under the cheesy and ridiculous camp levels of comedy.

For instance, his series of skits known as Bobby Bottleservice is parodying several reality television genre codes, as well as cultural and fashion norms. Some of the genre codes include breaking the fourth wall in those famous one on one camera sessions, the handheld moving camera shots and of course crying on camera. The series’ style and character is parodying a mix of Cheaters, Jersey Shore, Punk’d, and that gym rat who wears Gucci sunglasses, the extensively ripped jeans, and Affliction.

Bobby Bottleservice is a recurring character on Nick Kroll’s Kroll Show. 

Another parody skit is my personal favorite, Rich Dicks. The series is a blend of the Kardashians meets the Real Housewives of wherever. In the skits, the characters display a wealthy and ignorant dynamic whose focuses are on current trends, unusual investments and of course their drug supply. A recurring theme demonstrates a perception of how celebrities live their lives and to exaggerate what wealthy people seem to be concerned with.

The Kroll Show being the ridiculous skit comedy show that it is, has its moments. It serves as a genre parody not only to reality TV, but to American cultural and social norms as well. Although I wouldn’t recommend sitting and watching a whole episode of the show unless you’re a fan of Nick Kroll, but killing some time on the short Youtube clips would definitely make a bad day a wee bit better.

Discussion response for Sturken and Cartwright’s “Postmodernism, Indie Media, and Popular Culture”:

1. Postmodernism asserts that identity is performed, and the physical body is imagined to be easily transformed. Give an example of a public figure incorporating these postmodern ideals into their identity, and the processes by which they do this.

In modernism, the image of the body is viewed as stable and fixed, meaning a person lives with the identity (gender, race, sexuality) they were born with. Opposite to that, postmodernism perceives identity as “fragmented, pluralistic, and multifaceted.” Additionally, postmodern has been used to describe individuals that generate their identities through a myriad of media images and texts and creating simulacra (a hyperreal identity that doesn’t connect back to the real person, but instead their media image seen as more real). As a result, there is the idea that people perform their identities, rather than being fixed with what they were born with.

Putting on and off a performing identity or image has been a characteristic of pop artists since the 1980s with the emergence of music videos and a greater sense of visual performance. Sturken and Cartwright highlight Madonna as one of the first to popularize parodying and adopting styles from others. Her image was based on the Madonna, Marilyn Monroe, and a number of alternative style and image transformations throughout her career. Another popular singer, Michael Jackson transformed his identity as “a way of nostalgic reference to past icons” by undergoing a series of surgeries and treatments to change his physical appearance. Both of these two vocal artists’ built themselves as images, and transformed their looks according to a familiar cultural referent. While Madonna changed her appearance through make-up and different clothing choices, Michael Jackson went further in erasing his physical body of black identity and changed to extremely pallor skin. Changing one’s identity can range from cross-dressing, colored lenses, hair dying, make-up to plastic surgery, prosthetics, and even further with idea of cyborgs, half human half robot.

(Warning: image source leads to an anti-Madonna blog…)

But when focusing on one postmodern artist, Lady Gaga was at the forefront of my mind. In one quote Lady Gaga says, “The statement is that I’m not one icon. I’m every icon. I’m an icon that is made out of all the colors on the palette at every time. I have no restrictions.” Not only does her words seem to explicitly state her postmodern mindset, but her actions follow fellow postmodern artists before her. Like Madonna and Michael Jackson, Lady Gaga has referenced and remixed icons – Madonna even being one of them.

Besides the daring outfits of Lady Gaga, there are other aspects of postmodernism beyond transforming the physical body that she incorporates, truly defining her as a postmodern artist. Beginning with her stage name “Lady Gaga”, she is rarely addressed by her birth name Stefani Germanotta. By keeping her personal and celebrity status separate, the identity of Gaga has become multifaceted. Her pop star media image is simulacra, complete with the extravagant outfits and visuals she is recognized for (source). Furthermore, Lady Gaga continuously expressed the message of being yourself, emphasized with her song “Born This Way” (a song that also has speculation about being similar to Madonna’s Express Yourself song). This message rejects traditional structure and social norms of modernism (source). By incorporating strong postmodern ideals into her image, Lady Gaga’s identity is a memorable one.

The main differences between modernism and postmodernism can be summarized by the idea of skepticism. Postmodernism challenges the basic assumptions of the modern era used to guide the basic understanding of the human condition. The postmodern society is not ok with just accepting the “grand theories” of the modern time but instead tries to pursue more localized and contingent ideas.

Modernism comes along with a certain set of ideals and beliefs in the realm of society. First off, the modern society holds to a master narrative or singular idea in the aspects of history, culture, identity and origin. The postmodern society develops suspicions and grows to reject the ideas of master narratives and tries to create new counter ideas of origins.

Another main dividing issue between the two ideals is the idea of unity. Modernism holds to hierarchy and order and favors a more centralized control of power. Modernism wants to promote a sense of unified identity and a collective whole. Modernism looks on the idea of “the family” as a central unit for social order and wants to follow the middle class family model. The postmodern ideal breaks away from this. Postmodernism is led by a desire for fragmentation from the centralized control and promotes the philosophy of contrasting and conflicting idea and identities existing together. Alternatives to the accepted model for family units appear in postmodernism and the system of molds breaks down.

The idea of media and its influence can be analyzed between modernism and postmodernism ideals. For instance, the modern society holds faith in the “real” aspect of thing beyond the media representations and recognizes the authenticity of originality. Whereas in a postmodern society, virtual and hyper realities are seen as more powerful than the “real” and usually represent themselves as individualistic with no connection to the prior “original”. Media in the modern system is a very centralized one to many broadcast system where the media has all control in the distribution of propaganda. The postmodern system is much more interactive, giving the public more freedom to move in between the mediums of media to consume the information that they desire.  Also in modernism, the book and test is a sufficient bearer of the information and a library is the system for printed knowledge, whereas in postmodernism hypermedia transcends the physical limitations of print and the internet becomes the centralized hub of knowledge and information.

Finally in modernism there is a clear barrier between the ideas of organic and inorganic. There is always a clear difference between human and machine and there is no crossover between these ideas. Postmodernism blurs the dividing line and makes way for a cyborgian mixing of organic and inorganic beings.  Human, machine, and electronics all live and coexist and become to grow closer and closer to each other until the inevitable crossover occurs, which the postmodern society is fine with happening.

So in conclusion, modernism can be looked at as the established order with very strong, set ideas about society and the interactions that happen within it, whereas postmodernism tries to break down these conventions to allow for a more navigable society in which ideas and views can be distributed and received with maximum ease.

This is what popular culture has assimilated (a postmodern wreck) to, the ability to produce generic, systematic, commercialized material that people buy into. The reason why it works is because society likes it and its simple, not really much that artist do these days to be different and to argue, why change if being a sell out makes you money? The acts of artist like Radiohead and The Smiths are considered subversive only to the limitation we place on them. Depending on what the goal is, any artist can achieve their goal of getting audience attention by being different or subversive. The definition of subversive, “seeking or intending to subvert an established system or institution” or in other words to provoke altercations within an established authority to voice an opinion. We can make an argument that many artist these days already do so in their songs, depending on whether we are speaking of their acts, or the lyrics within their music. A famous artist we can take a look at could be Eminem in his song Mosh. The song is very direct, explicit, and grimy if I might add. I enjoy the song because of how Eminem executes his message about president bush during the time of war in Iraq. There are prior examples to him, but he directly points a finger at the president for the mistakes he has made and how society is out lashing for what he caused (the amount of U.S troops killed over oil).

The video (Youtube source)  that Eminem made supports the argument more so that just like Radiohead and The Smiths, it is not so much what the artist do to provoke subversiveness within a system, but how they do it that matters. Eminem executes with the lyrics in a song that he follows up with a music video to provide evidence to his reasoning to saying the things he does for grabbing an audience. Might I add, this is true hip hop, the artist itself does not matter to me, but the content that is provided, it is safe to say that rap/hip hop itself is subversive. The genre calls for subversiveness because its origins are from jazz and blues music that revolve around systematic flaws (like U.S politics). If this is not enough support take the interview BET did with Eminem a while back.

That being said, Radiohead and The Smiths are only justified in whether they establish their argument properly if their cause is reasonable. Eminem was justified for being provocative in that his intent was in regards to U.S politics being ineffective. The act can be done direct or even indirect almost passive or for a better usage of word metaphorical. Artist from other countries have done the same thing that Eminem has but in a less aggressive manner, take the example from a Mexican country band Los Tigres Del Norte – La Granja (source Youtube). Obviously an audience from another country who has no historical knowledge of Mexico will not understand the meaning behind their lyrics but it makes the point about getting a message across to their niche audience (in this case, citizens of Mexico). Los Tigres del Norte, like Eminem, send a message about how politics (an institution) is corrupt and have problems maintaining a satisfied society, just another example about how music can be be provocative within the music industry and the system.

It is arguable to say that all music is subversive in its own way, but then again, many artist sell out and end up creating a systematic tune that everyone will embrace without really sending a message. They achieve their goal of sending a message but there is nothing about it that is changing the system (Drake, Lil Wayne, Future, etc.). The sources here are more on content that they encode in a highly post modern society while embracing or commemorating the modern characteristics that have been lost. If you would like to hear music that contains and subversive material and his produced by subversive artist take a look into SPM (When The Devil Strikes), Immortal Technique (Dance with the Devil), A Tribe Called Quest, and Big L (Put it On) to name a few.

Carlos Coy aka SPM (source: hiphopprophecy.com)

Felipe Andres Coronel aka Immortal Technique (source: theindiespiritualist.com)

A Tribe Called Quest (source: egotripland.com)

Lamont Coleman aka Big L (source: Youtube – LAKIM’s Sailor Moon Mix)

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. 

The genre parody is certainly not a new ordeal but is definitely attached to the ideas of postmodernism, and most of us have at some point come across a genre parody in film or television. The early 2000s, for example, brought us the Scary Movie series, overflowing with parodies of the horror film genre in order to entertain and mock the codes we have all come to associate with horror. Also a notable example is This Is Spinal Tap (1984), that played off the documentary film and successfully breathed life into the mockumentary genre’s strategies that now plagues new media.

What is a genre parody though? To understand parody, we must first understand pastiche. Pastiche is a work of visual art, literature, theatre, or music that imitates the style or character of the work of one or more other artists (Wikipedia). Pastiche can be similar to paying homage to an earlier work or celebrating it. Parody employs the same strategy but instead the intention behind imitating is to mock or critique the content it is imitating, though there are exceptions that simply imitate for the sake of imitating. For this piece, however, I will focus on The Simpsons and its importance within genre parody.

In his book Watching with The Simpsons: Television, Parody, and Intertextuality, author Jonathan Gray “[examined] how audiences consume with a whole barrage of other images and structures learned from other items of media.” Gray’s analysis provides evidence that this is true by narrowing down three preexisting forms of media that the show critiques in its content—advertising, television news, and, the focus of this post, the “domesticom” genre.

The ‘domestic comedy’ is a category that was coined by Horace Newcomb but is also known as the family sitcom. The Simpsons is a perfect example of a commentary on this genre because it takes codes associated with it and reevaluates what they mean, inviting their audiences to decode a hundred different new meanings from the structure they have chosen to dismantle.

Like the sitcom, each episode of the The Simpsons is a self-contained narrative with a beginning, middle, and end—there is a catalyst that will set the action in motion or create chaos but at the end the natural order of things will be restored. In family sitcoms it seems problems within the family are always so easy to address or deal with, leaving the resolution to always be a peaceful one. Something terrible may have happened but it is never drastic enough to change the entire course of life for the characters.

But perhaps that mode of addressing the problem is not reflective of reality and this is where The Simpsons likes to question it—Bart, Homer, Lisa, Maggie, and Marge face altercations that may not always be fixable and sometimes downright ridiculous but never out of the realm of domestic life. And even when they are resolved they are not addressed in the same docile manner as the domestic comedy. They purposely challenge the structure of family and audiences can then question the authenticity of the ideologies that most family sitcoms present—like the myth of the ‘American Dream’ and the perfect family home. The relationships between the characters are not conventional ideas of sweet, loving siblings with parents that are representative of the ideal marriage between a man and a woman. Homer is this mess of a man who can’t quite seem to do much right but Marge somehow continues to say with him, Bart is a troubled youth who knows the principal’s office by heart and doesn’t have a strong suit in academics, and Lisa is presented as an often overly outspoken kid who refuses to conform. But despite their most unconventional characteristics, they still remain true to the idea that family love is unconditional, something they share above all else with the family sitcom.

The possibilities for analysis of the entire series may have no short end, in fact the list of meta references for this show keep growing but its success has certainly proven it to be worthy of its criticism/mockery of the family sitcom. So on that note and in true RHE 315 fashion, here’s a short video essay on The Simpsons.

To address whether different game genres require different considerations for where their sense of agency lies between the two poles of schema and image, I’ll be taking a look at fighting games like Street Fighter and Super Smash Bros. and then comparing these to action-roleplaying games such as The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt and Bioshock.

In Super Smash Bros. and Street Fighter, the gameplay is driven towards the pole of body schema. The controls for the fighters are mapped to a gamepad and the movements required to play the game rate very low on the complexity of P-actions when taken individually. A P-action will punch, kick, grab, block, jump, or perform some other similar action that involve an input of direction and the action desired. This said, a string of P-actions performed in quick succession correctly can send a grown adult home crying to their parents because your anthropomorphic fox fighting avatar unleashed a flurry of millisecond-fast destruction on to their Italian plumber fighting avatar, thus winning you a competition and roughly $10,000 prize money. These are real things that happen.

Now, the rapidity of translation of action input and action output makes these games extremely fast-paced despite the apparent simplicity of the game itself. This competitive game format combined with a high skill cap often means that the agency of the player resides within their sensory-motor capacities and whether they can respond both quickly and correctly to changing situations while in virtual combat with another player. The responses must be simultaneously consciously considered and automatic, which definitely downplays the importance of body image in these fighting games. While the player can usually reskin their character, the overall appearance and the meaning of the avatars’ actions are not of particular importance.

Above: possibly the greatest moment in video game history. Insane amount of technical skill required to a) block Chun-Li’s fearsome kicks and b) come back and win the game.

Above: if the first video was Bach’s Cello Suite No. 1 Prelude in G Major, then this is Lil Wayne’s “A Milli”: equally incredible, significantly more crass. NSFW language.

Now, in third-person and first-person narrative-based roleplaying games, much more emphasis is placed on the body image than the schema. The character on screen, whether playing as Geralt in the Witcher series or Jack in Bioshock, is an extension of your body, and the choices made within that virtual body are identifiable with those of your body. For example, in the Bioshock games, the player is presented with the dilemma of Little Sisters—genetically mutated children who harvest a substance known as ADAM (essentially, potent stem cells) from the dead bodies that are scattered around Rapture, a failed Objectivist undersea city-society (I know, right?). The player can either cure them by injecting a serum into them that cures them of their mutation, or they can kill them and harvest their ADAM reserves (because this functions as currency for superpowers and the like in-game). Now, regardless of what you choose, the game is first-person, and the player witnesses the choices made through the interface played out on screen. This presents the issue of “well, would I do this in this situation? Would I physically perform these actions?”, and it is this issue that gives many players pause the first time these games. In The Witcher, the player embodies Geralt, a monster hunter with what essentially amounts to no defined moral code. The player is often put into situations where they are presented with a set of choices, usually during dialogue, where there is no clear-cut right answer. In this sense, the player must reflect upon their body image and what they could picture themselves actually doing in such a situation.

by Harrison Thomas and Alfredo Olazaba

1. What are the defining differences between postmodernism and modernism?
2. How does the act of “quoting,” whether referring to texts, clothing, or general style, create a “distancing irony?” Give an example of this.
3. Postmodernism asserts that identity is performed, and the physical body is imagined to be easily transformed. Give an example of a public figure incorporating these postmodern ideals into their identity, and the processes by which they do this.
4. What is a genre parody? How does it function? Give an example.
5. Are musical acts such as Radiohead and The Smiths that behave subversively within the system of the music industry effective in achieving their goals? Argue why or why not.