![]() ![]() That film contains elements we might think would make it difficult to take seriously. One of the films she names in her essay, and one of the breed that influenced The Shape of Water, is 1933’s King Kong. Nevertheless, there’s a reason Sontag says that a work of art can be “too good” or “too important” to have camp appeal. These films can display profound competency. This is to say the uncritical expression of emotion we recognize in camp films is certainly not a bad thing. Jacques Demy‘s films are similarly impressive for their use of color and compositions. Part of the reason we receive Singin’ in the Rain this way is because of how impressive its choreography and physical performances are. La La Land‘s direct, telegraphed references to other films are a part of this, making its artifice part of how it analyzes itself. Obviously many would disagree that this is necessarily a bad thing about La La Land, but otherwise the point is well-taken: the other musicals White mentions are concerned with ornately and uncritically putting emotions on display, while La La Land is more focused on questioning its characters. He chastises La La Land for being too referential and self-conscious to be camp, and names Singin’ in the Rain, West Side Story, and the work of Jacques Demy as properly camp films. So Bad it’s Good?įor a few examples of such films, and how they differ from other films, we can look to Armond White‘s critical review of 2016’s La La Land. ![]() Going over what that appeal actually was may give us a broader perspective on current and future films that borrow from them but don’t quite replicate what they did. It takes influence from films that had camp appeal without having it itself. It draws heavily on earlier films, but feels different from them. The recent success of The Shape of Water gives us reason to take another look at this concept. ![]() To put it crudely, camp films leave us too busy reflecting on how extravagant they are to reflect on their messages at the same time. The second is that if camp works of art have some sort of content or message, it is rendered impossible to take seriously because of the degree of artifice. The first is that it involves the appreciation of artifice and style, such that we appreciate something for how artificial it seems, rather than whether that artifice is beautiful or not. Sontag‘s essay revolves around her definition of “camp”, which seems to have two major points. (In any case, Sontag was an astute film critic herself.) The best description of what “camp” means as it applies to art is probably Susan Sontag‘s 1964 essay “Notes on ‘Camp'”, and while that essay doesn’t apply to film exclusively, it does suggest that film fans are likely to appreciate the “camp” sensibility because people tend to approach movies in a “high-spirited and unpretentious” way. This kind of distinction and appreciation is part of what constitutes the rather vague concept of “camp” art. Gravitating toward things that diverge from the realm of normal good taste reminds us of both the limitations and powers of what we’re watching: we remember that films affect us in ways that don’t always offer us wisdom or perspective, but also that we can share sensibilities with others over some unusual and unexpected things. But it’s good to appreciate films whose value is hard for us to place. This goes especially for those movies whose appeal seemingly has nothing to do with the usual notions of elegance or consideration. For those of us who love talking about movies in-depth, there are times when it becomes very hard to explain why some movies are great, or to put the feelings they inspire into words. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |