Forums
New posts
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Awards
Log in
Register
What's new
New posts
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Poison your name this Hallowe'en
There's plenty of time to choose your spooky October username
Click here for more details
Forums
Dynasty
Dynasty
"Valley of the Dolls" vs "Mommie Dearest" vs "Dynasty"
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Crimson" data-source="post: 332985" data-attributes="member: 5079"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>I mostly agree with Sontag's musings on Camp, except perhaps for this:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Camp cannot be intentional Camp. When a production aims to be <em>Camp</em>, 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?</p><p></p><p>(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!)</p><p></p><p>And so, I suppose, this definition is about as close as I can get to what I agree with:</p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]39480[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p>Not perhaps my precise concept of Camp, but close enough; and, most importantly, no correlation to <em>quality</em>. I really reject the notion that Camp is the same as incompetent production.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crimson, post: 332985, member: 5079"] 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: Camp cannot be intentional Camp. When a production aims to be [I]Camp[/I], 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: [ATTACH type="full" alt="1658929798646.png"]39480[/ATTACH] Not perhaps my precise concept of Camp, but close enough; and, most importantly, no correlation to [I]quality[/I]. I really reject the notion that Camp is the same as incompetent production. "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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What month follows July?
Post reply
Forums
Dynasty
Dynasty
"Valley of the Dolls" vs "Mommie Dearest" vs "Dynasty"
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top
