Prologue:
Your
first thought will no doubt be: "What could these two films possibly
have in common?" The answer is this: I am the perfect audience
for both. I love musicals and anything to do with "theatah people".
I also love vampires and supernatural stuff (Witness my undying devotion
to Buffy the Vampire Slayer). But
unfortunately the most receptive audience member can turn on you if
you can't deliver the goods.
Camp
signals both its pleasure and pain inducing qualities right from
the opening number ...and come to think of it, in most of the subsequent
numbers as well. The intro is a spectacularly sung (by Sasha Allen) gospel
number "How Shall I See You Through My Tears" which is, unfortunately,
juxtaposed clumsily with that ol' sympathetic standby ---images of a kid
getting beat up at high school for simply being himself. The movie is
painfully literal throughout, never trusting the audience to get the not-at-all-difficult-to-grasp
emotional content of the songs themselves.
Another
great number toward the finale, the cheesy but undeniably enjoyable
"Here's Where I Stand", also runs into ruin. The song is sung
by one of the main characters, a shy but powerhouse singer (Tiffany
Taylor as "Jenna") whose parents (who we meet very briefly
at the beginning) have routinely dismissed and demeaned her. We understand
from the beginning of the film that she wants her parents to accept
her as is and that they don't. During her moving number, the editing
cuts constantly to long reaction shots of her parents so that the lyrics
become more loaded with specific meanings than even a toddler would
need to understand what's happening in the scene. The song is a culmination
of the singer's whole character arc ---now she has the confidence to
tell her parents how she feels. Yet the filmmaking team doesn't seem
to understand that the song is about the singer. It's not about
her parents at all. But Camp, as a film, is like this; It hits
a difficult, beautiful high note and then trips during a simple dance
move.
Clumsy
storytelling aside, there is much to like in Camp. There are
several sympathetic and charming characters. Some of the humor is laugh-out-loud
funny, particularly for those in the audience who are theater savvy.
But despite its endearing charms, Camp falls flat due to the
aforementioned amateurism and the kind of sentimentalism welcome only
in Hallmark cards. This 'comedy about drama' painfully and predictably
shoves aside the comedy for the drama repeatedly. It dives deep into
'life-lessons-learned' more times than I care to recall. Characters
actually tell you in cringe-inducing speeches exactly what the movie
is teaching you. One scene between two teachers is virtually inexcusable
in the audience handholding it's doing. It's as subtle as a torturer
pinning a victim's eyes open so they have to watch something horrific.
Camp's
amateurism is a shame because there's one killer performance (Anna Kendrick
as the scheming, nay, practically diabolical "Fritzi"), a
couple near-genius musical moments ("The Ladies Who Lunch"
& "And I Am Telling You"). It's an easy film to sit through
if you love musical theater. However, in the end, the best that can
be said is that it'll be something of a guilty pleasure for obsessive
Sondheim fans (myself) and musical theater enthusiasts (also me again,
hi!). The pleasure comes loaded with guilt because Camp is most
definitely not a good film. C
Equally
disappointing is the new Romeo & Juliet of monster movies, Underworld.
This would-be creature feature classic throws you immediately into the
middle of a centuries-long blood feud between the aristocracy of a vampire
clan and the rapidly growing lower class band of lycans. The story is
credited to Kevin Grevioux, Len Wiseman, and Danny McBride and the screenplay
to McBride. Given that the premise is clever and the storyline surprisingly
unpredictable Underworld, like Camp, aches to be a better
film than it is. Watching it I felt supernaturally infected -like I'd
been bitten by my own inner filmmaker. Immediately an uncontrollable
lust for a better film welled up in my veins. But the lust, like the
vampires eternal thirst for blood, would never be truly sated. For,
alas, Underworld is not very good.
Len
Wiseman's film, despite a bundle of original touches in its basic concept
and plotting, stubbornly refuses to be anything but derivative in its
filmmaking. I must ask: Isn't there anyway to shoot battle scenes these
days without using the ice blue filter? I don't think I've seen any
other color employed since Batman Returns and Terminator 2
premiered in all their blue-tinged glory a decade ago. And it's not
just the color schemes. The battle sequences have no real drama in them.
The editing and blocking fail to grip the audience or lead to coherent
action sequences (though, to be fair, there is at least one notable
standout sequence which involves a fresh werewolf bite and a car chase
with a lycan on foot behind the automobile). Even in conception, the
action seems poorly thought out. The mundane and fetishized use of firearms
(i.e. boring old guns) in a film with vampires and werewolves struck
me as unintentional self-sabotage. Vampires and werewolves are, after
all, deadly without firearms and in significantly more interesting ways.
Underworld
is competently made and its assembled team is hardly lacking in talent.
But the inspiration well appears to have run dry. This vampiric/lycan
war offers nothing of interest in its cinematography (Oscar nominee
Tony Pierce-Roberts), production design, or costuming (multiple Genie
nominee Wendy Partridge). Since the premiere of The Matrix, Kym
Barrett's costume design has been shamefully plucked on every "cool
film" made after it. The X-Men films are only the most high-profile
recent example. There is now apparently an invisible edict. All films
and characters that want to be cool must use black vinyl or some variation
thereof. It's as Ms. Barrett were a vampire herself. Her sleek and dark
designs have sucked all the creativity out of every other costume designer
who dares a genre film. The same thing happened with production designers
after Bladerunner. Greatness nearly always provokes imitation.
That's understandable. But after a certain number of years pass, artists
should attempt to move on from these trusty but overused templates.
Currently
there is talk of Underworld spawning a sequel. If this does prove
to be the case I only hope that the filmmakers onboard will take a step
back, realize what riches could be milked from the premise, and attempt
something both new and great, something deserving of the original ideas
from which the film sprang. C-
Epilogue:
(Sigh) Right audience. Wrong response. If Underworld and Camp
can't manage to please this fan of vampires and musicals, I can't
imagine how non-fans of the two genres represented will react. I doubt
I'll watch either film again. Instead, I'll throw in my DVD of the
classic Buffy the Vampire Slayer musical episode,
"Once
More With Feeling" for
the millionth time. Vampires AND Musical numbers coupled with inspired
and competent filmmaking! Now, we're talking an A+