Susan Sontag’s notion that “many of the objects prized by Camp taste are old-fashioned” because “the process of aging or deterioration provides the necessary detachment – or arouses a necessary sympathy” is interesting and accounts for many films’ cult followings.[1] However, it immediately struck me that this is not always the case. Some Like it Hot (Billy Wilder, USA, 1959) has many camp characteristics. The premise revolves around cross-dressing and exaggeration as two musicians disguise themselves as women to escape Chicago mobsters, and the plot becomes increasingly exaggerated and comedic as they try to keep their real identities hidden while simultaneously vying for the leading lady’s affection. The elements of theatricality and the musical numbers contribute to the Camp atmosphere. However, the film was an immediate hit, winning several Academy Awards and later being selected for preservation in the US Library of Congress, contradicting Sontag’s idea of Camp as “old-fashioned”.
The identification of Camp aesthetics in a film with enduring popularity makes me think that many elements of camp are actually timeless. Cross-dressing and pushing boundaries of what is conventional in society (Babuscio argues that “camp advocates the dissolution of hard and inflexible moral rules”)[2] has been a key element of theatre for centuries, ranging from Aristophanic comedies like Women at the Thesmophoria[3] to the gender-swapping confusion of Shakespeare plays like Twelfth Night.[4]
It is undeniable that Camp may look slightly different for different generations: Camp pushes for societal change and is on the fringe of what is acceptable, so it changes as societal norms change. This may be why the shift from being considered taboo to being celebrated can take time, as Sontag identifies. However, camp’s core tenets remain the same, generating a kind of timelessness.
It is interesting to me whether this sense of timelessness, especially in the cross-dressing and gender-defying elements, is because these issues are not necessarily specific to any one generation, and therefore defy Sontag’s notion that the issues of a particular generation are not funny at the time but generate humour and Camp atmosphere for succeeding generations. Patriarchy, gender roles and attitudes towards homosexuality are issues that the western world has been concerned with for centuries; perhaps the more pointed and specific a certain issue is for a certain generation, the stronger the reactions generated.
[1] Susan Sontag, “Notes on “Camp”” in Against Interpretation and Other Essays (London: Penguin Classics, 2009), 285.
[2] Jack Babuscio, “Camp and the gay sensibility” in Queer Cinema: the Film Reader, eds. Harry M. Benshoff and Sean Griffin (New York: Routledge, 2004), 123.
[3] Aristophanes, The Frogs and Other Plays, ed Shomit Dutta, trans. David Barrett (London: Penguin Classics, 2007).
[4] William Shakespeare, Twelfth Night, ed. Elizabeth Schafer (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
You make a good point here about how camp may not be as tied to its social, cultural and historical contexts as one might assume. Beyond being timeless, Camp can be recognised universally. I like how you tie Billy Wilder’s exploration of camp with Aristophanes and Shakespeare to prove how Camp doesn’t lose its effects over time.
I totally agree with your last paragraph there, the social back-and-forth over sexuality and gender seem to me to be timeless due to the fact that they are immutable things in a way. A specific war or political movement or powerful figure may come and go, but gender and sexuality are things that people live with constantly.