Jack Babuscio argues in his ‘Camp and the Gay Sensibility’ that camp is “exaggerated” and when the stress on style is outrageous or too much, it results in incongruities.” [1] In Jennifer’s Body, Jennifer’s (Megan Fox) devilish desire to eat men is shown in a hyperbolic fashion given the extreme distortions of her face and her animal like fangs. The stylistic device used to portray Jennifer as abnormal and scary is outrageously exaggerated especially in scenes where she is vomiting black fluid. This happens in a mechanical fashion which appears unnatural and makes the film lose its serious horror element momentarily. In this way, the incongruities exist to elicit a response which makes the audience detached from the film. Such incongruities also highlight the unreal and unbelievable presentation of Jennifer as a possessed figure. The alteration of her character itself creates an incongruity between her new cannibalistic self and previous self.
Babuscio also goes on to state that due to such incongruities, the emphasis shifts “from what a thing or person is to what it looks like; from what is being done to how it is being done.” Jennifer is reduced to a monster-type figure as she uses men to survive. She transitions into a possessed being as the emphasis shifts onto her looks rather than her intrinsic personality. These looks encompass a sexualization of her femineity as well as a demonization of her body and face. Even though Jennifer is hiding her possessed self, it surfaces at various junctures blurring the boundaries between “what a person is” and “what it looks like.” Despite, this splitting of her two coexisting selves, the possessed Jennifer is more dominant as most of the plot revolves around her actions devouring victims. Instead of highlighting what is happening, the film focuses on “how” her character is molded. This is done through the cinematic techniques of distorting faces, making Jennifer’s body hover in the air and using other stylistic elements including grotesque, bloodied makeup.
[1] Jack Babuscio (2004), ‘Camp and the gay sensibility’, in Queer Cinema: The Film Reader (eds Harry M
Benshoff and Sean Griffin), New York: Routledge p.124
I quite like your analysis of Jennifer’s Body as an exponent of camp comedy, especially in the way that you highlighted the film’s complete subversion of the norms of oppression. It’s interesting how that film particularly weaponised the female form, while simultaneously producing humour and terror!
It’s quite interesting that a lot of horror films often use camp elements, and especially those of the comedy/parody horror genre. I think it is the case since these films are trying to appear not just scary, but hilariously scary and thus, make use of some of the most “outrageous and unacceptable sentiments” (Babuscio, 124) to constantly surprise and amuse the audience with their exaggerations.
Your analysis of Jenifer’s body with babuscio’s point is very intriguing. The paradox of using makeup and CGI animation to create a beautiful but horrific character is fascinating, and I think your post discussed this very well.
I like how in Jennifer’s Body the stereotypical characters of the American Highschool drama are exacerbated to the extent they are effectively parodies of themselves. I think through this technique the campiness of the film acts as an auxiliary to the self-awareness of the film as a whole.
I like this example in relation to Babuscio’s points. This over-exaggerated of both beauty and horror shifts the characters from being who they are to the mere caricature of who they are presenting themselves to be; this implementation of campness allows us to laugh at its exaggerated nature.