“All Camp objects, and persons, contain a large element of artifice. Nothing in nature can be campy …. Rural Camp is still man-made, and most campy objects are urban. (Yet, they often have a serenity-or a naivete-which is the equivalent of pastoral.) […] One must distinguish between naive and deliberate Camp. Pure Camp is always naive. Camp which knows itself to be Camp (“camping”) is usually less satisfyhig. 19. The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious. […] In naive, or pure, Camp, the essential element is seriousness, a seriousness that fails. Of course, not all seriousness that fails can be redeemed as Camp. Only that which has the proper mixture of the exaggerated, the fantastic, the passionate, and the naive.” (Sontag, 279-283)
I’m sorry, but the opportunity was too good to pass up. I present to you: the Twilight Saga. In her chapter, Sontag defines the idea of “camp” as several points, among which I have included above. These stand out points can be found at many points throughout the franchise. Firstly, the Twilight Saga has many ties to nature, due to the setting being Forks, Washington (the rainiest place in the continental US). The filming was largely on-location in Forks and Port Angeles, which showcase dense forests and quiet beaches. Nature shots are quite frequent throughout the saga and, like Sontag notes of other camp films, these shots take a serene or naive approach, while still having urban ties. The other settings are more populated, and arguably the blue-filter applied to the entirety of the first movie could be seen as urban in filmmaking, and therefore becoming a “man-made” type of nature.
Secondly, Sontag talks about “Pure Camp,” which is “always naive.” The Twilight Saga, especially the earlier films, are unequivically naive and unintentional. This goes along with Sontag’s next point, that pure camp is unintententional– something that tries to be serious and fails. At almost no point does the Twilight Saga not take itself seriously. (One of the only times I can think of where this is not the case, would be Jacob’s “hotter than you” line in Eclipse.) Even during the funniest and cringiest of scenes, like “hold on tight, spider monkey,” “where the hell have you been, loca,” “Say it. Out loud. Say it,” and “you nicknamed my daughter after the lochness monster,” the Twilight Saga still carries an overarching serious tone. This is not supposed to be comedy, it is supposed to be a supernatural romance, and it tries (and fails) to present itself solely as such. However, the fandom loves to treat it as comedy (even the die-hard twi-hards who take the saga seriously) and this pheneomon has spread even into the saga’s marketing. A prime example of this would be the second video I have included, which is one I took at home a few years ago of a Freeform commercial marketing their Twilight marathon. The commercial takes full advantage of the saga’s “so bad, it’s good” reputation and supercuts many of Bella’s notorious gasp/stutter moments.
Finally, Sontag’s last point is one that could be debated. Sontag states that not all failed seriousness can be taken as camp, sometimes, it’s just a bad film. Is the Twilight Saga bad? Yes. Absolutely. But there are also many good things about it– from the music, the supernatural worldbuilding (which is more developed in the books), and objectively, many of the shots and scenes are quite good– ie. the gazebo and wedding scenes. Twilight, in my opinion, has the right mixture of naievety, exaggeration and fantastic to be camp, rather than just a bad film.
I think Twilight is a great example of naive Camp, a film that takes itself ‘dead serious’ (almost literally, as its about immortal vampires). Your last point is really interesting. There seems to be a very fine balance between a film that is Camp being naively serious and yet offering something of genuine artistic value, which grounds the film, preventing it from being labelled as merely a ‘bad film’. Thus, I wonder what aspects of an outlandish film like Twilight, according to Sontag, must be ‘good’ enough for it to be considered Camp, and not downright bad. Are these the formal elements of the film (such as Twilight’s quality cinematography and soundtrack that you mentioned), its themes or artistic voice etc?
I found your use of Sontag’s statement about nature really interesting, as one might assume based on the reading that Twilight’s mostly natural setting would work against its campiness, but the uncanny-valley-ness of the atmosphere actually makes it feel more manmade.
This is an excellent example of how a film becomes camp in retrospective. The films relationship with its audiences is so interesting, as the franchise comes in and out of the zeitgeist. The mania that came from young fans when it was first released was replicated when it became popular again during the pandemic except the audiences now loved the film for its campiness and comedy rather than its serious drama and melancholy.