"Valley of the Dolls" vs "Mommie Dearest" vs "Dynasty"

[Spooky Owl!]

... which was the best/worse (or both) camp? And why?

Whenever Alexis asserted during Season 2 that she threw a Hollywood actress's Oscar and wig out the window, I often picture Susan Hayward -- although Hayward had that done to her in VALLEY OF THE DOLLS (1967). MOMMIE DEAREST (1981) premiered the same year as DYNASTY, both of which paid homage in their own ways to '40s glamour.

All three are cited as the peak of Hollywood "camp" in keeping with Sontag's famous quote the camp can not be intentional, that it must stem from a production which aims furiously for seriousness yet fails spectacularly.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

a production which aims furiously for seriousness yet fails spectacularly.

I think the campiest aspect of Dynasty is the OTT glamorous wardrobe but since it looked as if it wanted to indulge the viewers with that fantasy I don't think it was sold as seriousness, and therefore it didn't really fail.
One could argue that it resembles the kitsch-pop production values of VOTD, but again, kitsch isn't exactly the same as camp.

I guess Mommy Dearest failed spectacularly to convey the (allegedly?) tragic aspects of Crawford's life because it looks so funny. DYNASTY had those moments too but I'm not sure if the worst parts actually involved Joan Collins, ironically.
The "take this junk, and your blonde tramp" makes perfect sense to me. It also worked for DALLAS, didn't it?

 

[Crimson]

Adding my unpopular opinion: I'd argue that DYNASTY is anti-camp. VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and MOMMIE DEAREST are self-serious but possessed by a lunatic energy. DYNASTY seems to be the antithesis of that: it seems self-aware yet inert.

Somewhere along the way "camp" has been equated with "bad", but camp has nothing to do with quality. VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and MOMMIE DEAREST are indeed both bad films, but that's not why they're camp. If so, every piece of cinematic ineptitude would be camp.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

I'm not sure if the worst parts actually involved Joan Collins, ironically.

Yes.

DYNASTY seems to be the antithesis of that: it seems self-aware yet inert.

Yes. "Camp" would be a step up for DYNASTY, but it's far too oppressed and, as others have said, suffocated.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Somewhere along the way "camp" has been equated with "bad",

And "funny".


However, according to cambridge dictionary:

camp
adjective
mainly UK informal

(US usually campy)

(of a man) behaving and dressing in a way that some people think is typical of a gay man:
What's the name of that amazingly camp actor with the high voice and a funny walk?
using bright colours, loud sounds, unusual behaviour, etc. in a humorous way:
Their shows are always incredibly camp and flamboyant

To me, that suggests that camp knows what it's doing instead of a fortunate/unfortunate byproduct. But I couldn't say if this really is the original description of "camp".
MOMMIE DEAREST is not a bad movie because one way or another it entertains.

Also, it should be noted that "camp" is mostly used by people who would be familiar with the Cambridge description as posted above (in other words: the gays) so, before it equated with "bad" it may have become more of an overarching description for everything that includes one of those aspects regardless of the context.

Sometimes unintentionally funny is just that: unintentionally funny. Which, btw, is not exactly the same as so-bad-it's-good.
I've watched the Netflix sci-fi series ANOTHER LIFE and I just couldn't believe how bad it was. And they always came up with something to top it. It was absolutely mesmerizing, but for all the wrong reasons.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

 

[ClassyCo]

For me, I define "camp" as a piece of film (whether small or big screen) that intends itself to be "serious", but yet flounders in its execution.

I'd say DYNASTY was "camp" for a few seasons, when it was still trying to make us all believe that it was taking itself seriously. DYNASTY presented itself as being glittery, guilty pleasure trash, and it was trash, and I guess generically glittery, but it lacked a passion after a few seasons to actually keep people engaged. When the show eventually became "camp for camp's sake", it really went downhill. Season 6 thru Season 8 were really quite bad, and the show trying its hand at winking or being tongue-in-cheek just didn't work. It seemed forced and, as we've said numerous times, the writing for the characters had already stopped. They were just making things up as they went along (which many of the cast members have said) and that doesn't equate "camp". That equates laziness.

As for MOMMIE DEAREST, I'd say it is probably the pinnacle of "camp". Joan Crawford and her real-life persona has a lot of "camp" wrapped up in it. She was devoted to stardom, always dressed to the nines, hopelessly devoted to Pepsi, and yet desperately wanted to be both a popular star and taken seriously as an actress. The film version of "Joan" we see in MOMMIE DEAREST takes some of those aspects and cranks it up several notches. The "Joan" we get in the movie is what the BKR video describes as "instant character". We instantly know who "Joan" of the movie is: she's powerful, to be obeyed, and nothing will boss her around or get in her way. That's the stuff "camp" is made of. And, I mean, c'mon, MOMMIE DEAREST is a enjoyably bad movie, crammed with quotable lines as if it were made purposely to be used in drag acts and parodies in the decades following its release.

I'll have to excuse myself from analyzing (or trying to analyze) VALLEY OF THE DOLLS because I've never seen it. I've seen the AMC documentary that's been linked in an earlier post, but not the movie itself. I know some people say that DOLLS was the epitome of "camp" until MOMMIE DEAREST came along and took that crown. I used to have a stronger admiration for things considered "camp" when I first really got into movies, but that's lessened over time.

 

[Crimson]

I suppose it's worth noting the last time there was a discussion on Camp -- in the Movies forum -- the conversation inconclusively sputtered out. Camp seems to be something everyone recognizes, without quite agreeing on what it actually is. Add to that the natural elasticity of language, where a concept is over- and mis- used until the concept loses its identity.

I mostly agree with Sontag's musings on Camp, except perhaps for this:

Sontag's famous quote the camp can not be intentional, that it must stem from a production which aims furiously for seriousness yet fails spectacularly

Camp cannot be intentional Camp. When a production aims to be Camp, it automatically fails. But "fails spectacularly" presumes that Camp is inept; this seems to be where the connection with "Bad" originated. (Although I mostly blame the writers of "Bad Movies We Love". They took a wide range of diverse bad movies and muddled them together into one vague umbrella of Camp.) VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and MOMMIE DEAREST are both Camp, but so are SUNSET BLVD., ALL ABOUT EVE, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE and WHATEVER HAPPENED TO BABY JANE?

(This might pinpoint Camp as being about flamboyant divas but I'd say that von Stroheim, Sanders and Brando contribute as much to the Camp sensibilities as their films as Swanson, Davis and Leigh. Flamboyant divas -- and drag queens -- do seem to be an ideal vehicle for Camp though!)

And so, I suppose, this definition is about as close as I can get to what I agree with:



Not perhaps my precise concept of Camp, but close enough; and, most importantly, no correlation to quality. I really reject the notion that Camp is the same as incompetent production.

MOMMIE DEAREST is not a bad movie because one way or another it entertains.

"Bad" is a rather qualitative assessment, but quality really has no impact on enjoyment. A bad movie can be fun, and an expertly crafted film can be a bore. But, yeah, I think MOMMIE DEAREST is about as bad a film as one can get. It lurches and fumbles its way through the subject, with no perspective or even sympathy and neither narrative or emotional cohesion.

 

[ClassyCo]

I suppose it's worth noting the last time there was a discussion on Camp -- in the Movies forum -- the conversation inconclusively sputtered out. Camp seems to be something everyone recognizes, without quite agreeing on what it actually is

I started that discussion over in the Movies forum. And you're right -- we all can identity something that is "camp" but what I may identify and you may identify might not always be the same thing. So, I guess, whether or not you find something to be "camp" is at least partially dependent on your personal perspective.

 

[Crimson]

Conversations on the subject would be a lot easier if there was a distinction between Camp (an aesthetic sensibility) and campy (a descriptive adjective). Campy seems like a good word to cover what people mean by Camp: exaggerated but perhaps kind of bad, and unintentionally funny.

I also wish there was such a distinction between Soap [Opera} and soapy, but perhaps that's just me.

 

[Alexis]

It's strange, I mean in music people like Cher or Kylie Minogue, have a very campy aesthetic, look and sound but it's not of poor quality and they aren't bad singers or performers. There is usually a flair for the dramatic, and an archness or tongue in cheek style to lyrics and production. So I think camp can be intentional.

I think people like Cher and Kylie, and probably even Joan Collins, are playing into that kind of over the top drag queeny thing. Which is funny, as drag queens originally started emulating performers like Bette Davis, and Joan Crawford. I guess it all just comes full circle until we eat ourselves and die.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

Conversations on the subject would be a lot easier if there was a distinction between Camp (an aesthetic sensibility) and campy (a descriptive adjective). Campy seems like a good word to cover what people mean by Camp: exaggerated but perhaps kind of bad, and unintentionally funny.

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense.

I don't think that DYNASTY aimed for credibility, it was first and foremost a soap opera, but it always pretended to believe in its own universe.
The catfights, bitch slaps and other sorts of one-upmanships could be interpreted as intentional campy, I suppose, but maybe they were just crowd-pleasers because it got people talking. Surely no other show before had done it as extremely as DYNASTY?
THE COLBYS does less, it's extremely earnest and for the most part very well acted, and yet I can't think of another series that feels so satisfyingly campy.
To watch Sable Colby bumping her Mercedes into Barbara Stanwyck is a camp-boy's wet dream come true.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

and yet I can't think of another series that feels so satisfyingly campy.

OK, and Dark Shadows too!

 

[Alexis]

Oh yes, that makes perfect sense.

I don't think that DYNASTY aimed for credibility, it was first and foremost a soap opera, but it always pretended to believe in its own universe.
The catfights, bitch slaps and other sorts of one-upmanships could be interpreted as intentional campy, I suppose, but maybe they were just crowd-pleasers because it got people talking. Surely no other show before had done it as extremely as DYNASTY?
THE COLBYS does less, it's extremely earnest and for the most part very well acted, and yet I can't think of another series that feels so satisfyingly campy.
To watch Sable Colby bumping her Mercedes into Barbara Stanwyck is a camp-boy's wet dream come true.

Sable collapsing as she's about to leave the Colby mansion and her slut sister and husband is also gloriously camp.

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Although I paraphrased Sontag's comments.

But, yeah, I think MOMMIE DEAREST is about as bad a film as one can get. It lurches and fumbles its way through the subject, with no perspective or even sympathy and neither narrative or emotional cohesion.

Why, in your opinion, did MOMMIE DEAREST eventually supplant VALLEY OF THE DOLLS as "the CITIZEN KANE of camp"??

 

[Spooky Owl!]

Sable collapsing as she's about to leave the Colby mansion and her slut sister and husband is also gloriously camp.

But wasn't the comparative seriousness of THE COLBYS -- and the thespianic superiority of La Beacham -- what makes it better camp?

The sloppiness of DYNASTY, the "inertness", the "the producers didn't know what they wanted" dynamic at work there, really tripped it up from becoming the camp extravaganza it's often credited with, and remembered as, being.

Camp seems to know what it wants to be (even if it fails, perhaps because it fails) but DYNASTY seemed to not even know what it was failing at.

 

[Alexis]

I have to say I love both VALLEY OF THE DOLLS and MOMMIE DEAREST, dearly.

 

[Werewillie Oleson]

I have Valley Of The Dolls on DVD and my series and movies collection is of the highest quality.
If it's on my shelves then that's all the proof I need.

 

[Alexis]

But wasn't the comparative seriousness of THE COLBYS -- and the thespianic superiority of La Beacham -- what makes it better camp.

The sloppiness of DYNASTY, the "inertness", the "the producers didn't know what they wanted" dynamic at work there, really tripped it up from becoming the camp extravaganza it's often credited with, and remembered as, being.

Camp seems to know what it wants to be (even if it fails, perhaps because it fails) but DYNASTY seemed to not even know what it was failing at.

Yes, I mentioned in another thread about recently watching the season 6 finale with a friend and being embarrassed by it's amateurish tone, and ineptness. It makes it camp, but in a terrible way, and it's not all Joan's fault. In fact sometimes she's the only thing making it work while all around her is utter lunacy, played deadly straight.

 

[Alexis]

I have Valley Of The Dolls on DVD and my series and movies collection is of the highest quality.
If it's on my shelves then that's all the proof I need.

I haven't watched the sequel yet though, it's a double feature in my DVD. I read the blurb and it sounds insane. Sex , drugs, and a woman in male drag? I think I wont love it.