Kevin, take a look at Susan Sontag's essay "Notes on Camp".

-----Original Message-----
From: Damian Sutton [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 30 May 2003 13:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: The Musical-- part 2


As ever, I'd have to both agree and disagree with Robert Koehler:

Agree:
I think the problem with Kevin's professor is his narrow understanding of
camp. Notwithstanding its popular image, to suggest that it is something
that either is, needs to be, or can be, "heterosexualised" neglects both the
delightfully complex idea of camp and its rich potential beyond the fairly
confined discourses of gay and straight performance analysis.

Disagree:
Despite a rather odd moment during Richard Gere's dance routine (when one
realises that it clearly isn't him), I'd say Chicago was, for me
surprisingly wonderful.

I do, of course, know a few camp and not-so-camp people (of various
sexualities) who would heartily disagree with both the above sentiments.

best

Damian


--
Damian Peter Sutton, PhD
Lecturer
Department of Historical and Critical Studies
Glasgow School of Art
167 Renfrew Street
Glasgow
G3 6RQ

Tel: 0141 353 4560
Fax: 0141 353 4557
Email: [log in to unmask]

***********************************************

DISCLAIMER: Unless otherwise explicitly stated, any opinions expressed in
this message are my own, and do not represent the opinions of Glasgow School
of Art as an institution.




on 29/5/03 6:42 PM, Robert Koehler at [log in to unmask] wrote:

> Kevin wrote:
> A professor of mine called "Moulin Rouge" a heterosexualization of camp,
and
> another that it was Baz Luhrmann's reflection of 'gay Sydney'. Somewhat
> conflicting views I am still trying to sort out.
>
> Ahh, beware of professors. Camp had been, in your professor's awful, awful
> term, ``heterosexualized'' (do professors stay up late into the wee hours
> coming up with these obliterations of English?) long before Luhrmann and
> ``Moulin Rouge.'' There's an aspect of camp in the heterosexual Minnelli
> (``The Pirate,'' etc.) down to the equally heterosexual Menachen Golan's
> ``The Apple,'' and on from there.
> As for ``gay Sydney,'' who knows, except for gay Sydneyites and their
> close observers? (Perhaps Adrian Martin has a thought here...)
> More usefully, Luhrmann, with his many music collaborators, was
> consciously attempting a survey of 20th century music in ``Moulin,'' and
had
> even planned to include at least one song from each decade. His idea was
to
> match the film's formal idea of looking back at Lautrec's Moulin Rouge, by
> way of Minnelli's Moulin Rouge,  from the present day. Luhrmann's big
plans
> crashed on the reefs of business and budgets, resulting in something that
> ends up sounding closer to an Elton John tribute than a post-modern 20th
> century revue/review. In fact, I would argue that the failures of ``Moulin
> Rouge'' are its most interesting features: the sheer hysteria, in a very
> paradoxically male way, of its editing; the almost willful refusal to
allow
> the viewer to place in practical terms where characters actually are (with
> the resulting displacement serving no function or visible aim at all); the
> aggressively jejeune underlining and re-underlining of its simple themes
(we
> get it, Baz, it's all about ``love''--we get it already!); its absorption
of
> Hollywood musicals' sense of spectacle matched only by its bizarre
blindness
> to Hollywood musicals' sense of grace; its lead star's inability to sing
> (yes, we mean you, Nicole, not you, Ewan); and, above all, its
monomaniacal
> ken for repetition, like a kid playing with the forward-reverse buttons on
> an Avid editing table.
> As for ``Chicago,'' my vote is down for worst, absolute worst movie
> musical since at least ``Paint Your Wagon.'' Your professors may
> disagree....
> Robert Koehler



This is an email from Baker & McKenzie, solicitors. The contents of this
email are confidential to the ordinary user of the email address to which it
was addressed. No one else may copy or forward all or any of it in any form.
Our postal address is 100 New Bridge Street, London, EC4V 6JA, United
Kingdom, at which address a list of our partners may be inspected.  If you
receive this email in error, we should be obliged if you would  telephone
our postmaster on +44 20 7919 1000 or email [log in to unmask]
Thank you.

This is a legal communication not a financial communication. Neither this
nor any other communication from this firm is intended to be, or should be
construed as, an invitation or inducement (direct or indirect) to any person
to engage in investment activity.

The following information is provided in accordance with the Solicitors'
Financial Services (Conduct of Business) Rules 2001. The provision of our
legal services may relate to investments. We are not authorised by the
Financial Services Authority, but we can undertake certain activities in
relation to investments which are limited in scope and incidental to our
legal services or which may be reasonably regarded as a necessary part of
our legal services. We are regulated by the Law Society. If for any reason
we are unable to resolve a problem between us and a client, our client may
utilise the complaints and redress scheme operated by the Law Society.