What is Camp?

[martin]

I recently reread a text about Twin Peaks; a text we studied at the University in the mid-90's: Jim Collins: Television and Postmodernism (in: Allen, R.C.: Channels of Discourse, 1992).

While discussing the use of genre references in TP (Gothic horror, soap, police procedural etc.), Collins says (pp. 345-6):

At one moment, the conventions of a genre are taken "seriously"; in another scene, they might be subjected to the sort of ambivalent parody that Linda Hutcheon associates with postmodern textuality. These generic and tonal variations occur within scenes as well as across scenes, sometimes oscillating on a line-by-line basis [...]

This sort of tonal variation has led a number of critic to conclude that Twin Peaks is mere camp, an ironic frolic among the rustic bumpkins and the TV trash they devour along with their doughnuts. But the series is never just camp; the parodic perspective alternates with more straightforward presentation, encouraging an empathetic response rather than the ironic distance of the explicitly parodic.

I'm not sure if we can deduce anything by this excerpt, but it seems that - according to Jim Collins - camp always has an ironic distance to its subject.

[nycmagus]

Do not forget about Deadly Camp -- the genre perfected by Fassbinder. Camp is inscribed in his films' relationship to themselves and to German history. An extra layer is added for good measure when a camp-aware spectator watches. A supreme moment of camp is Anna Karina giving a Godardian performance in the mddle of the ultra-Fassbinderian CHINESE ROULETTE.

I have always like Christopher Isherwood's understanding of camp:

“You can't camp about something you don't take seriously. You're not making fun of it; you're making fun out of it. You're expressing what's basically serious to you in terms of fun and artifice and elegance.” The spectator plugs into this dual sense of joy and seriousness and experiences camp.

A degraded notion of camp posits the ironically detached/superior viewer who condescends to the material and finds it frivolous, an approach championed by a late critic whom I shall not criticize by name since my Mother told me it was wrong to speak ill of the dead.

[David Ehrenstein]

In the Ishwerwoodian sense Brief Encounter is camped in The History Boys.

Other seriosu Camp Items.

ALL the Sternberg-Dietrich films, and The Shanghai Gesture

Warhol and Tavel's The Life of Juanita Castro

Fassbinder's Querelle.

[Michael]

The Sweetest Thing is full of fun camp, one of my guilty pleasures.

[Mr Sausage]

old Nazi Richard Strauss (Der Rosenkavalier and Four Last Longs)

Poor Strauss. And he wasn't even an anti-semite (unlike Wagner, who, because of this malady, people call a Nazi despite his having died before Hitler was born).

[David Ehrenstein]

Clearly you're nat familiar with Ken Russell's Richard Strauss: Dance of the Seven Veils

Wagner got the rep, but the real Nazi composer was Richard Strauss.

[David Ehrenstein]

"Hitler Youth on speed."

LOL! Perfect!

[nycmagus]

Deadly Camp could also include some of Roman Polanski's films. He frequently engages genre with love and horror (which might be the healthiest attitude toward life as well).

[David Ehrenstein]

What ? is Polanski at his campiest. It's the Little Annie Fanny version of The Exterminating Angel.

[Mr Sausage]

Clearly you're nat familiar with Ken Russell's Richard Strauss: Dance of the Seven Veils

Kind of hard to be familiar with this one, no? Not that one should ever take Ken Russell's films as history.

[David Ehrenstein]

Its banning is proof of its importance.

[Mr Sausage]

Its banning is proof of its importance.

It's not banned.

[David Ehrenstein]

Yes it is.

The Strauss estate has forbade its showing.

[Mr Sausage]

Yes it is.

The Strauss estate has forbade its showing.

From what I understand they refused to allow the film to use Strauss' music which, tho' tantamount to a ban, is not quite the real thing.

[Lino]

Either way, Warner is releasing it this year in R1 via its BBC label. For more info, go to the Ken Russell on DVD thread.

[David Ehrenstein]

"From what I understand they refused to allow the film to use Strauss' music which, tho' tantamount to a ban, is not quite the real thing."

Just like Richard Carpenter banning Todd Haynes' Superstar over music rights. It's a ban.

[Antoine Doinel]

"From what I understand they refused to allow the film to use Strauss' music which, tho' tantamount to a ban, is not quite the real thing."

Just like Richard Carpenter banning Todd Haynes' Superstar over music rights. It's a ban.

Not to mention that Mattel also brought their own lawsuit regarding the use of Barbie dolls in that film as well.

can someone post a top 10 campy films in order for me to look for and see?

The Maltese Falcon

I was surprised to see this one listed as it doesn't strike me as campy at all. Yes, Peter Lorre's character is clearly gay, and Sidney Greenstreet is uh, eccentric, but I don't think the film operates in a way I would consider campy.

Just curious what your thoughts are as to what you see as the camp elements of the film.

[Mr Sausage]

"From what I understand they refused to allow the film to use Strauss' music which, tho' tantamount to a ban, is not quite the real thing."

Just like Richard Carpenter banning Todd Haynes' Superstar over music rights. It's a ban.

Yes, a ban on using music he doesn't own. I'd like to see the Strauss film as much as anything (tho' I am vaguely disappointed that Russell doesn't hold opinions on Strauss' music similar to mine), but I'm not going to equivocate. Real suppression in film means the suppression of images; the images in Russell's film are not suppressed--outside parties may have made seeing them more difficult, but they have not made it illegal or impossible. Watching it is not quite a subversive act.

[Mr Sausage]

As has been outlined elsewhere by MichaelB and others another source of displeasure to the Strauss estate was a scene of Uncle Dickei having a picnic on the grass with Uncle Adolph. And getting VERY chummy with the Nazis.

Sounds like the entire thing was a source of displeasure to the Strauss estate, and it's not hard to see why they didn't want to give it Strauss' music, accurate or not.

[nycmagus]

Real suppression in film means the suppression of images; the images in Russell's film are not suppressed--outside parties may have made seeing them more difficult, but they have not made it illegal or impossible.

Real suppression? Ken Russell's soundtracks are as vital to his films as his images are. The film is suppressed -- really and truly suppressed -- when someone/some party forces a filmmaker to remove filmic elements that she has included in her work. To experience a film without the soundtrack intended by its maker is not to see the film, but rather a bastardization of it. For me, such as act counts as real suppression.

[Mr Sausage]

Real suppression in film means the suppression of images; the images in Russell's film are not suppressed--outside parties may have made seeing them more difficult, but they have not made it illegal or impossible.

Real suppression? Ken Russell's soundtracks are as vital to his films as his images are. The film is suppressed -- really and truly suppressed -- when someone/some party forces a filmmaker to remove filmic elements that she has included in her work. To experience a film without the soundtrack intended by its maker is not to see the film, but rather a bastardization of it. For me, such as act counts as real suppression.

By this logic, whenever a band or their estate denies a filmmaker a song he wished to use for his film, that film becomes suppressed. And films that are not on DVD, and rarely if ever shown on tv, because they are tied up in legal wrangles over the music rights (or the expense thereof) are also suppressed. Or, hell, whenever a producer or production company or whomever recuts a director's movie, or even in the production phase asks for something to be changed against the intentions of the filmmaker--those films are all suppressed. You're working with strange idealizations.

The music is not Russell's, so it's unreasonable to call for moral outrage when he is not allowed to do whatever he wishes with it. Furthermore, the music for the film is not suppressed--you can find and listen to (and sync up, if you wish) each and every piece of music Russell wanted for that film. What's refused is the public performance of the music along with the film.

[nycmagus]

By this logic, whenever a band or their estate denies a filmmaker a song he wished to use for his film, that film becomes suppressed.

If the refusal comes during the production, while such action is obscene, it is not suppression. The Strauss estate objected to the use years after the film had been made and shown.

The music is not Russell's, so it's unreasonable to call for moral outrage when he is not allowed to do whatever he wishes with it.

Shakespeare's words are not Laurence Olivier's, so should Shakespeare's descendants be allowed to ban the showing of Olivier's HAMLET? I know that in the degraded Age of Bush the concept of the ownership society is all the rage, but after an artist's death shouldn't other artists have the right to make use of her work as they see fit?

What's refused is the public performance of the music along with the film.

Which is a de facto way to suppress the film since without the music as incorporated and shown by Ken Russell, the film is not the work he made.

[Mr Sausage]

By this logic, whenever a band or their estate denies a filmmaker a song he wished to use for his film, that film becomes suppressed.

If the refusal comes during the production, while such action is obscene, it is not suppression. The Strauss estate objected to the use years after the film had been made and shown.

I know it's not suppression, that's my whole point: that the reasonable continuation of your logic would lead us to believe the above is also suppression.

Shakespeare's words are not Laurence Olivier's, so should Shakespeare's descendants be allowed to ban the showing of Olivier's HAMLET? I know that in the degraded Age of Bush the concept of the ownership society is all the rage, but after an artist's death shouldn't other artists have the right to make use of her work as they see fit?

Such suppression would be the suppression of images, which is something I explicitly said was a real ban, ect.

Hardly matters since copyright law likely didn't exist back then, and Shakespeare's works weren't published until after his death. But do you think theaters other than the Globe would and should have been allowed to perform Shakespeare's work while he was alive?

Which is a de facto way to suppress the film since without the music as incorporated and shown by Ken Russell, the film is not the work he made.

You're just rewording your previous post, which I have already answered.

[nycmagus]

You're just rewording your previous post, which I have already answered.

With respect, you haven't. Russell's film on Strauss was shown as Russell intended in 1970. It is unable to be shown at the moment because of objections by the Strauss family. That is suppression -- after-the-fact censorship by the Strauss family to an already completed and broadcast work of art. If they had objected during the making of the movie, it would not have been suppression, but as far as I can tell they did not do so.

Although we have the images, Russell's incorporated music to accompany those images. If he wanted the images alone, I presume he would not have included the music. To suppress any part of a filmmaker's creation is to suppress the aesthetic experience she intended the viewer to have. To suppress sound is as bad as suppressing image.

[Mr Sausage]

With respect, you haven't.

Then you clearly have not bothered to understand anything that I have said, and if you're not willing to put in even that effort then I see no reason why I should either. Consider the subject dropped.