They Live: Underestimating Camp

Type :

Presentation

Pages :

4 pages

Format :

.doc

Published date :

11/19/2007

Category :

Arts & media

Sub category :

Film studies

Oboulo.com selection criteria

$ 6.95 Add to cart

Summary :

Introduction
Unimpressed film critics
The lack of real depth to 'Nada'
The essence of an intentional camp
Conclusion

Abstract

Distinguishing a film as "campy" is, arguably, as difficult as determining whether or not a film is "good." The definition of "camp" is utterly malleable and, moreover, exists almost purely in the eyes of the beholder. Similarly, a film is rarely definably solely as "good" or "bad"; these are merely opinions. It is oddly fitting, and quite unfortunate, that films which become marked as "campy" are rarely described as "good". This can be partly explained by the fact that the majority of movies known as "camp films" are largely unintentional camp; put simply, camp films with a "so-bad-they're-good" quality receive the most attention. The films of Edward D. Wood Jr. are examples of classic, unintentional camp; movies made famous by the degree to which they do not "work." While unintentional camp is certainly an important part of cinema history, intentional camp often goes unnoticed, or at least underappreciated. Many intentionally campy films are quite noteworthy, and, moreover, are simply good films. John Carpenter's they live (1988) is an example of a camp film that not only "works," it has something meaningful to say. It is, in fact, a campy film, a socially parodic film, and a good film. Upon its initial release, they live was dismissed as a campy sci-fi/horror movie with dreadful special effects and poor acting.