In her definitions of Camp, Sontag states that ‘Camp sees everything in quotation marks. It’s not a lamp, but a “lamp”; not a woman, but a “woman”. To perceive Camp in objects and persons is to understand Being-as-Playing-a-Role. It is the farthest extension, in sensibility, of the metaphor of life as theater’.
With that in mind, I think a fitting embodiment of ‘camp’ would be Hugh Grant’s portrayal of washed-up actor Phoenix Buchanan in certified masterpiece Paddington 2. The idea of ‘life as theater’ is reflected through the disguises that he dons throughout the film, which include a thief and a nun. This sensibility is also evident in the third clip in this compilation (4:59), in which he sits in front of a mirror in his dressing room monologuing to himself and pretending to converse with mannequins dressed as characters that he has previously portrayed.
Sontag also states that ‘the relation of Camp taste to the past is extremely sentimental’, and this is reflected in the portrayal of Buchanan as a washed-up actor who is seemingly unable to move on from his glory days in the past, to the point that he is preparing to stage a one man show featuring all of his past characters. Additionally, Phoenix Buchanan’s home is decorated with framed photos of a younger real life Hugh Grant (highlighted at 8:14). Prior to this film, he was typecast as an often emotionally avoidant romcom love interest, and this meta reference to his other roles highlights the fact that this role as an ostentatious villain is such a departure from his previous well-known characters, such as in Love Actually.
Other key features of Camp include ‘the spirit of extravagance’, and it being ‘art that proposes itself seriously, but cannot be taken altogether seriously because it is “too much”‘ according to Sontag. She also discusses the visual reward, the extravagant glamour and theatricality that characterises Camp. The musical number linked above features a rendition of ‘Rain on the Roof’ from Sondheim’s Follies, with choreography that would not look out of place on a Broadway stage. The only difference here is the context of setting and characters, which, as it is set in the prison and consists of Buchanan clearly having turned the other inmates and guards into his new theatre company, pushes it over the edge of ‘too much’ and makes the scene Camp.
This is such a perfect match with Ross’ discussion of the camp association with glamorous, washed-up old Hollywood (or I guess a British equivalent), plus the thespian overacting of every little movement also helps Grant have an “instant character” and for us to feel the totality of the “force of the person” (as Sontag writes)
I really like your idea that the notion of ‘life as a theatre’ is reified in Hugh Grants character. It is interesting to consider how the Campiness of Grants performance in the film was partly resultant from Grant drawing upon aspects of his extra-diegetic star persona in a meta, self referential way, in order to engage in a playful self-parody. In this way, Grant arguably ‘corrupts’ the ‘innocence’ of Camp by intentionally drawing attention to his public persona and exaggerating it to an extreme degree.
after watching paddington in Peru (I didn’t love it) and realising if (for me at least) went past camp like it didn’t kit the charm or in this case campiness that of paddington. Olivia Colmans Nun felt silly unlike Hugh grants ‘washed up actor’