What Exactly is "Camp"

And how can it relate to May December?

A shift has occurred. On December 1st, the year of 2023, Todd Haynes’ May December was put on Netflix, after a brief theater run a few weeks prior.

In case you are unaware, May December stars Julianne Moore as Gracie, a woman who is infamous for grooming a middle-school aged boy, now her husband Joe, played by Charles Melton. The case is brought back to attention decades later when a movie about them starts being developed with Natalie Portman’s character, Elizabeth, playing Gracie. Elizabeth is in the process of following Gracie, trying to become her, which starts to legitimately consume her as the film progresses. This is not a review, so I’ll leave the synopsis at that, but I do recommend it! Obviously be warned of the subject matter, but it was quite well made, and an acting masterclass across the board.

What catches my attention today is the response to this movie. Or, well, more specifically the response to the response. Inescapable discourse had erupted, especially in the first day or two after it dropped on Netflix. I’m not here to discuss any one person’s thoughts on it, film is far too subjective for me to go back and forth about how people interpret art, but the backlash is what intrigued me.

Before the film was even released on Netflix, ever since initial reactions were posted, reviews were referring to it as “camp.” When it did come to Netflix, Letterboxd became flooded with such reviews. Accounts were calling it “campy,” but also an influx of joke one-liner reviews started circulating after its Netflix premiere. Backlash soon followed. Backlash that may still be going. I wouldn’t know, I have muted just about every word I could think of for a variety of reasons, which I’m sure you’ll understand by the end of this issue.

One thing kept confusing me throughout this discussion, though, which was seeing the negative reaction towards the film being referred to as “camp” specifically. “Camp” is not just memey Twitter (… sorry, X) lingo, after all. I always thought of it as a technical term. It’s a style. I jumped to a conclusion that people were just confused. Even if the movie itself wasn’t necessarily “campy” it isn’t as though referring to it as such is derogatory. It’s an art-style. When the discourse became all-consuming on my socials, I decided to shift to a new conclusion… what if I am the wrong one? Perhaps, I’m off-base? I took a few pop culture analysis classes in college, but I’m by no means a student of art or particularly film. I learned what “camp” means, but language is ever-evolving, especially in a digital age where context is widespread and shifting.

I decided to make this a research paper where I can share my findings to my audience. I had to discover what camp REALLY means, and if it can coincide with films such as May December.

PART I: What “Camp” means to Twitter… I mean X.

(Pictured Above: Pop culture history, Source: Karlie Kloss on X, formerly known as Twitter, dot com)

In my perspective, there is one specific moment that changed how the term is perceived online. When “Camp: Notes on Fashion” was announced to be the theme of the 2019 Met Gala. Of course, I can’t speak for everybody’s timeline when that was announced, but in my circles at the time? There was a lot of confusion on what exactly “camp” even means. The follow quotes are from articles that were either released around the time in which the theme was announced, or I just found helpful in gaining a beginner understanding of the concept of the camp aesthetic:

“In 1964, Susan Sontag defined camp as an aesthetic “sensibility” that is plain to see but hard for most of us to explain: an intentional over-the-top-ness, a slightly (or extremely) “off” quality, bad taste as a vehicle for good art.”

“It appreciates the artificiality of art, inverts the aesthetics of beauty, and strips the work of its political/social/cultural context.”

“Notes on ‘Camp,’” her 58-point ur-listicle, builds on that inherent sense of something being “too much,” and also fences it in. Camp is artificial, passionate, serious, Sontag writes. Camp is Art Nouveau objects, Greta Garbo, Warner Brothers musicals and Mae West. It is not premeditated — except when it is extremely premeditated.”

A lot of the time when people discuss “camp” it is about fashion, but the aesthetic can transcend artform. Much of the examples of “campy” cinema come from the 20th Century. Many of which became “cult classics” and I believe that is because audiences of the past embrace what is exaggerated more than we tend to today. Though, plenty of these films “flopped” upon first release and had to develop a fanbase over time. Today, though, “camp” is seen as too low brow to be appreciated. Old Hollywood gets a pass because Cinema of the Past can’t possibly be low brow! It’s totally inaccessible and only for intellectuals, of course!

I’m getting ahead of myself. Social media got a hold of the term “camp” with an incomplete understanding of what it meant, and it became… a meme of sorts. Anything “bad” but “fun” got the label, sort of as a way to excuse liking something that is low brow or “trashy.” Anything unserious, anything in between, can be “camp” if you frame it in such a way. It has the same “too bad it’s good” implications, but without the credentials. For what was essentially a full century, the term was only used in circles of artists, critics, of high fashion. It was a staple in the Queer Artist Culture above all else. It’s now ingrained in the meme culture of the X App, which makes for a disconnect when people use it in a Critical Sense, with the True Meaning of the Word in mind.

To bring us back to Old Hollywood and the art made in that time, the era thrived in exaggerated deliveries and expression. There was a larger-than-life overtone in so many of the films of that era. The performances of the biggest film stars, everything felt elevated in this period. That never meant to evade serious topics.

The use of camp isn’t entirely seen as lesser art in modern cinema. One of the biggest movies of the year, Barbie, has a clear affinity towards campy nostalgic cinema in it, Greta Gerwig’s respect and homage towards several films of that era isn’t hidden, and that’s on top of the humor in the screenplay and the entire ensemble casts delivery being consistently exaggerated. The plot is about children’s toys being conscious, afterall. It’s a concept that favors a very campy lens. While it was met with its fair share of criticism, it is an instantly iconic film.

I think the vision of camp on social media is not altogether inaccurate. It’s Tommy Wiseau’s The Room. That is a form of camp, wherein I believe that in regard to May December these statements are all about the heightened emotions, the at times elevated theatrics in the aesthetic direction.

Before I continue, let it be known… I kind of went light-mode in this section. There is so much more to the history, especially the inherent queerness, of camp. The discussion to be had about directorial intent, performance, different locations and different implications. I just have to focus on how it pertains to this issue.

PART II: Now, let’s circle back to May December.

I say all of that to say… I don’t actually believe “camp” is the word I would use to describe May December. Actually, don’t even take it from me. Take it from Todd Haynes. When the reactions came out, he was just as confused as the timeline.

“It came up, sort of emerged at Cannes when the film first premiered. All of us were like, “What? Camp?” It was never something that entered my mind as a sort of methodology or a reference or a kind of attitude that I would be bringing to this, the telling of the story and interpretation of this script. I was surprised by it, and I felt like it was possibly reductive, but then I thought, you know what? The term is sort of symptomatic of trying to locate a word that means — [pauses] to me, camp is in the eye of the beholder. Camp is an interpretive mode where we revisit material from the past with a lot of history and a lot of distance from it, and we project onto it all kinds of meaning that wasn’t necessarily intended at the time. In that regard, I’m like, yeah, OK. I appreciate where the search for that term is.”

“What’s driving the search for that term? I don’t know if that’s necessarily where I would land, because that is what this movie is about, is interpretation and reading sort of against the grain of what you’re watching or at least being put into a place of uncertainty about what you think as you watch it. So, sure,, the music is of a completely different function […] the only parallel I can find is the film that originally some of that music comes from, which is “The Go-Between” from 1971, where the score is so aggressive and so in your face that you were immediately put into a state of going, “What is this movie going to be? What am I watching?” And I love that about that score. And I do think that contributes to, and of course, the zoom-in on the refrigerator and all that, but that’s, that’s been my reaction to camp. Although I love camp. I mean, I’m a student of camp.”

As he sort of implies above, and I agree, there are hints of “camp” throughout. Not just the score, the camera zoom-ins, the editing, the hot dogs, but particularly Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore’s performances I do liken to that of Old Hollywood drama actresses. Especially in how Natalie impersonates Julianne throughout, even in the most subtle ways.

The movie is already not humorless. I obviously wouldn’t call it a “comedy,” but it incorporates dark humor into the drama. The cast and crew have such a clear sense of humor about their work as well, sharing the jokey one-liner Letterboxd reviews on their Instagram stories as this discourse has been taking over. For the most part I don’t think any harm is being done by dubbing it a “camp” film anyways, even if that isn’t what they sought out to do. Is art not meant to be subjective? 

PART III: The Harm Being Done

There’s a clear distinction to be made here. I personally don’t see a problem in making a little joke about May December. At all, really. I don’t think Rachel Sennott making a one-liner off-comment about May December is this disturbing incident that warranted a 3-hour discourse on when it’s appropriate to be a little silly on Letterboxd. Where I do have a problem is when people take this as an excuse to be backhanded towards victims of grooming and SA in general, and this does NOT begin and end with reviews of May December. 

If you are on social media as much as I am, you see how people genuinely do not think victims of grooming in any capacity are worthy of respect or empathy. The masks of many are taken all the way off when it comes to such cases. That is proven time and time again. I don’t want to really name names, because I want to respect their privacy, I want them to have peace, however you can clearly see how being preyed on is a “gotcha!” moment, not a serious concern in anybody’s head. I’ve seen a lot of “you don’t take it seriously because it’s a male victim” and whilst I do believe there is truth to that, I also believe grooming isn’t taken seriously as a whole. It’s a punchline, a thing Twitter Activists can weaponize against the victim, because they do not see them as victims, they see them as stupid. For “falling for” such an older person. They don’t see the actual abuse. The abuser is ridiculed, sure, but very rarely is it separated from ridicule sent towards the victim in the same breath. The victim isn’t just left with the trauma of being groomed but is met with more backlash than anybody else within all online spaces.

You can have a sense of humor about this movie. Please do! The movie itself has its moments of (albeit dark) comedy. If I’m not mistaken, it’s being submitted in the Comedy categories for Award Consideration? However, it is important to bear in mind that there are real people impacted in this story. It’s not a biopic, but it takes obvious and admitted inspiration from a very real case, with a very real victim still living today. Villi Fualaau. Harm isn’t being done, until harm is done.

CONCLUSION:

So, if you can’t tell… I kind of lied. This didn’t end up being a fully researched paper. At all, even. I didn’t bring in Google Scholar. I didn’t fully deep dive into the origins of camp, or any theory. I don’t get paid enough to do the extra work. By the time I finish editing this, the timeline will have long moved on, the movie will be off the trending page. I got the quotes I needed to support what I had already thought to be true before I started and moved from there. My findings are ultimately fallible. If your perspectives are different from mine, that is perfectly alright.

I fear that posting this will make people think that I’m defending jokes about sexual violence, particularly sexual violence against men, when my intentions are actually quite the opposite. It’s my belief that expressing equal amounts of outrage at any little joke about this movie takes focus away from the actual underlying problems in Film Circles. If we act as though calling Julianne Moore and Natalie Portman’s performances a “mother-off” and people making jokes about grooming are equal crimes, is that not minimizing the real harm in question?

Don’t get me wrong… you’re allowed to feel uncomfortable about the tone of jokes, or the context of the jokes. Just because the cast and crew are having fun with it, doesn’t mean victims of grooming can’t take issue. I personally don’t mind a lot of these jokes, but I have gotten triggered by way less in the past. Every person’s perspective is different, and nobody can be the authority of the conversation. What was the point of this issue, then? You might be asking. Great question! I guess I hope we all just use critical thinking with how we navigate our platforms going forward. What prompts our outrage, and how do we use our outrage productively?