At the Very Least, I'd Have to Read Adorno

Gather round, all ye readers, for I have discovered something amazing.

In my attempts to better understand the mechanics of the movie-going experience, I have rediscovered my interest in camp. Or rather, a need to understand why people like camp, as I'm not sure I do anymore. Sure, it's fun, but I also find glorying in campiness to be easy and a little too spiteful for a movie-watching experience. Since I miss research (seriously, I DO) and am frequently bored and brain dead at work, I decided to go into the classic UChicago databases to see if I can find any academic materials relating to the analysis of camp in movies. Well, I found some. Not too many, but enough to sate me.

However, what I did discover was the wonderful periodical entitled Cinema Journal. I know, I know, big whoop. Film students everywhere are probably cringing at my newfound joy. I don't care! Two of my favorite interests--analysis and films--together in one source! It's very academic, and probably extremely annoying to analyze film in this way, but I freakin' love it. Listen to what some of the articles are (by the way, I found these by searching "James Bond"): Birth Traumas: Parturition and Horror in "Rosemary's Baby", Feminist Enterprise? "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and the Occupation of Femininity, The Poetics of Horror: More than Meets the Eye, "Too Close for Comfort": "American Beauty" and the Incest Motif, The Metafictional Hitchcock: The Experience of Viewing and the Viewing of Experience in "Rear Window" and "Psycho" and the list goes on and on.

[ETA: I had three well thought out paragraphs after this point, but Blogger decided to have one of its spells, as I tried to publish the post, and lost them (a strange thing, because it had been saving my work regularly, even after I'd written this much). So, the remaining paragraphs have been hastily written through gritted teeth and muttered expletives. Just thought you should know what I do for you people.]

Now I know this sort of analysis often guts the movie-going experience, and seems overly pretentious to even the most annoying academics. Many times, because people often act snarky towards less, um, involved movies, in order to show off how clever they are (another reason why camp isn't so cool anymore). There is a reason why nobody wants to watch movies with U of C kids (And yeah, I know I'm being slightly hypocritical here. Shut up.). Oftentimes, I like to shut out the analytic side of my brain and enjoy a movie simply for the plot presented to me. But, I like knowing that the option is available, if I want to indulge my nerdy leanings. It's funny, but I was never into over-analysis in most of my UChicago classes; however, give me a good movie to watch and I turn into "That Kid." I know I do. I know I annoy people. I don't care. And I know that people can read waaaay too much into movies, but isn't that what entertainment is really about? I mean the fact that you can, at times, enjoy a really good movie on two different levels (at least) is just cool.

Good movies/tv shows/web series are enjoyable no matter how you see them. And, agree or disagree with the points of the above articles, but they are sure to provide interesting food for thought. Movies don't have to be brainless entertainment! Like I've ranted about before, whenever Hollywood makes us work to connect complicated points by presenting them in an entirely entertaining manner, I say that's a damn good movie. DAMN. GOOD.

It's a shame I'm no expert--Cinema Journal seems to favor individuals who can actually articulate using examples from literature, history, cinema classics etc., as opposed to my style, which is more based in gut reactions. I'd love to get into a medium where I can wax poetic on what I find interesting about some movies, and how I read into their many, many onion layers.

...

Wait a second...