168. Camp - So Bad, It's Good | THUNK

Summary

In this PBS Idea Channel episode, Mike Rugnetta explores the paradox of films that are so bad they’re good, like *The Room* and *Plan 9 from Outer Space*. He delves into the concept of 'camp,' drawing from Susan Sontag’s 1964 essay, which defines it as an aesthetic that celebrates the failures of style over substance. The video questions whether such films are deliberately created or emerge from a creator’s misguided vision. By examining how we appreciate 'bad' art, Rugnetta illustrates how failure in film can become an unexpected source of delight, even creating cultural touchstones that people genuinely enjoy.

Takeaways

• 😀 The concept of 'so bad it's good' relates to works of art or films that are poor in execution but captivating because of their failure.
• 😀 Susan Sontag's essay 'Notes on Camp' explores the aesthetic enjoyment of things that are intentionally or unintentionally flawed, focusing on style rather than substance.
• 😀 Camp is defined by an appreciation for failure and absurdity, where the enjoyment comes from how badly something misses its mark.
• 😀 Films like *The Room* and *Plan 9 from Outer Space* are cultural touchstones for 'so bad it's good' because they are cohesive in their failure, creating a unique viewing experience.
• 😀 The key to a work being 'so bad it's good' lies in its coherence of style, where every aspect of the work is consistently bad, adding to its charm.
• 😀 There’s a difference between 'self-aware' bad art (like *Sharknado*) and 'pure camp' (like *The Room*), where pure camp has a seriousness that fails, contributing to its value.
• 😀 While traditional high art is often appreciated for its moral or technical superiority, camp embraces things that fail spectacularly, making them beautiful in their own right.
• 😀 Traditional art focuses on content, innovation, and mastery, whereas camp focuses on aesthetic pleasure derived from something that fails to achieve conventional success.
• 😀 The appreciation of camp requires a refined judgment, as fans of camp can find beauty and joy in works that others may dismiss as simply bad.
• 😀 Examples of 'so bad it's good' extend beyond films to things like DIY crafts or even Darwin Awards, where the inherent failure itself is celebrated for its audacity.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video script?

The main topic of the script is the concept of 'so bad it's good' in movies and other forms of media, particularly exploring the idea of 'camp' and how cultural works that fail in certain ways can still be appreciated for their inherent qualities.

What is the concept of 'so bad it's good'?

'So bad it's good' refers to works, often films, that are so poorly executed—whether in writing, acting, direction, or technical quality—that they transcend failure to become enjoyable and beloved because of their flaws.

What are some examples of films that are considered 'so bad it's good'?

Some well-known examples of 'so bad it's good' films mentioned in the script include 'The Room,' 'Plan 9 from Outer Space,' and more recent titles like 'Sharknado' and 'Snakes on a Plane.' These films are appreciated for their earnest failures.

How does Mike Rugnetta approach the idea of 'so bad it's good'?

Mike Rugnetta speculates whether it's possible to intentionally create a 'so bad it's good' movie or if such works emerge from genuine ignorance or hubris on the part of the creator. He contrasts films like 'Sharknado' with works like 'The Room,' asking if deliberate creation of badness can achieve the same effect.

What role does 'camp' play in the appreciation of 'so bad it's good' media?

The concept of 'camp,' as defined by Susan Sontag in her 1964 essay, plays a central role in appreciating 'so bad it's good' works. Camp involves enjoying something for its style, excess, and sincerity, regardless of its technical or artistic merit.

What is Susan Sontag's perspective on 'camp'?

Susan Sontag defines 'camp' as a sensuous celebration of style over substance, often ignoring traditional moral or artistic measures of excellence. Camp celebrates the ridiculousness or failure in a way that gives pleasure without moral judgment.

How does 'camp' differ from traditional aesthetic appreciation?

Traditional aesthetic appreciation often emphasizes moral or artistic value, such as technical excellence or depth of meaning. In contrast, 'camp' rejects these considerations in favor of an indulgence in style, excess, and humor, regardless of quality.

What makes a movie like 'The Room' a prime example of 'camp'?

'The Room' is an example of camp because it fails in virtually every aspect—writing, acting, cinematography—but its total failure is what makes it appealing. The sincerity of the creator, Tommy Wiseau, and the film's coherence of style, even in its incompetence, contributes to its camp value.

What is the difference between self-aware camp and pure camp?

Self-aware camp involves deliberately mimicking bad movies or over-the-top styles, often for comedic effect. Pure camp, however, involves a seriousness that fails, as in the case of 'The Room,' where the creator's earnestness contributes to the film's charm, despite its flaws.

Can works outside of cinema be considered 'so bad it's good' or 'camp'?

Yes, works outside of cinema, such as the Darwin Awards, DIY projects, or poorly executed crafts, can be seen as 'so bad it's good' or embody camp qualities. These examples celebrate failures in a way that reveals a kind of internal logic or aesthetic coherence, even if the outcome is disastrous.

What is the key takeaway from the script regarding the nature of 'so bad it's good'?

The key takeaway is that 'so bad it's good' works are not just about enjoying bad art for the sake of irony or mockery. Instead, they represent a genuine aesthetic appreciation of style, excess, and failure, where the pleasure comes from how the work is structured and the sincerity behind it, even when the execution is flawed.