Fan Artifact Presentation: Cult Fandoms and High Fandoms
March 23rd, 2008 by IllyBy Illy Quintano and Abby Graber
Fan Artifact: Christopher Walken
In their essays on the camp and cultish, Susan Sontag and Umberto Eco respectively focus much of their analysis on the idea of form over content. Sontag’s definition of camp is explicitly “neutral with respect to content” (Sontag, 277); it is basically an aesthetic concept. Similarly Eco’s exposition on the cultish aspect of Casablanca focuses on the construction of the film itself: what is important is that the film is composed entirely of tried and true archetypes. The actual content of those archetypes is relatively irrelevant. Both Sontag and Eco mention communities surrounding camp and cult objects, but ultimately they emphasize the location of campiness and cultishness within the objects themselves.
Our fan object, Christopher Walken, both exemplifies Sontag and Eco’s concept of camp and cult and points to where their theories might be underdeveloped. Walken is in many ways similar to Greta Garbo, Sontag’s quintessential camp actor. Like Garbo, Walken does not play characters, he plays himself. The direction of fan adoration is focused on Walken, not on the contact of the character he plays. Thus it is easier to respond to Walken on the screen as an “instant character” (Sontag, 286), and one expects no further development. Because audiences are responding to Walken and not the character, they often make the leap to his past roles. Watching Christopher Walken, one can often get the pleasurable sense of déjà vu that Eco attributes to cultish viewing. Christopher Walken is an archetype of himself. Finally, Christopher Walken fans often disaggregate Walken films into the parts Walken is in and everything else. For example, the way the famous “Watch-in-my-Ass” monologue has been extricated from Pulp Fiction. This exemplifies Eco’s “Unhinging” theory: Walken causes films to become unhinged.
However, although Sontag and Eco briefly mention the community aspect of the cult and the camp, most of their writing seems to view these aspects as being located in the object. We think that the community surrounding the cult or the camp deserves more attention. Urban Dictionary’s definition of “cult”, for example, says a “film or book that has a large non mainstream following over a long period of time”. Here, the emphasis is on the following, not on the film or book. This could also certainly be said of the cultishness or campiness of Christopher Walken. Part of fans’ pleasures comes from their membership in an exclusive community of people who “understand” and are intelligent and devoted enough to recognize his sardonic and dry humor as a type of genius. Liking Christopher Walken is like sharing an inside joke among friends. There’s clearly a dialectic between who Christopher Walken is and the fan response to him that creates him as an object of camp and cult fandom.
Here are some questions we think come out of our fan artifact presentation and Tuesday’s readings:
1) Are campiness and cultishness the same thing?
2) How arbitrary are these definitions?
3) What is the relationship between the size of the object’s audience and its cult/camp status?
4) Does camp/cult mean “unskilled”, or does it require a certain aesthetic sensibility as Sontag claims?
5) Is there a difference between a cult object, a camp object, and a fan object?
Posted in Fan Artifact Presentations | 7 Comments »
I just wanted to address the question of whether camp/cult means “unskilled.” I do not believe that it does and agree with Sontag’s argument that it requires a certain aesthetic sensibility. That said, I do not think that the distinction is always easy to make. Some films and shows have developed cult followings when their campiness is clearly intended by the producers. There are, though, some texts that many might view as simply not good but that may resemble the kind of off-beat humor and melodrama common to campy films and be mistaken for camp.
For example, Brainstorm, with Christopher Walken has without doubt been watched by Walken fans, and some may see it as an example of camp. I, on the other hand think it is just poorly made, and interesting only mildly as Natalie Wood’s last film.
Thus while the debate regarding categorization of texts may go on forever, I do think there is skill required for the production of camp.
I think the biggest issue is that camp and cult as buzz words has really branched so far out of its original definition that people tend to lose sight of its original intended meaning.
For instance, the Sleepaway Camp film series exemplify certain qualities of camp and cult followings. The plots are inane, ridiculous, and the twists are typically bizarre for the sake of bizarre, never particularly revealing or clever. Furthermore, these films have a dedicated following. I mean very dedicated. As a metal music fan I first became aware of the Sleepaway Camp movies because of the band CKY’s obsession with the original film (the band members have cameos in the upcoming sequel).
Now these films are not necessarily camp in the sense that they have self awareness of how ridiculous they are but the plot points, lack of character development, etc all seemingly follow common trends of camp material (I.E.-Troll 2, Silent Night Deadly Night, etc). The internet following of the films is equally in keeping with common cult followings: midnight screenings and Q and A’s with the stars, internet discussion boards, and remix trailers are all common to the film series fandom.
I think since the terms have gotten so far from their humble beginnings, people tend to mistake any old following or fandom for “cult”. A film or text gains that monicker not simply by being a film or a text, it should meet general criteria and that seems very lost on a lot of common interpretations. Was it greatly successful upon its initial release? Is it particularly well performed? Is it unintentionally funny? All common attributes of campy material, while certainly not all of them.
I think bringing up the community aspect of camp is a great contribution! These authors seem to feel any community surrounding a camp work is because of some essential element in the work itself (and thus ignore real discussion of communities). It’s laudable to try to find themes among cult objects, but surely, like any social construction, there must be some element of historical arbitrariness.
In this sense, some of the authors’ logic is backward. An object is not always cult (with a surrounding community) because of some element within the work, but it is cult because (for other reasons) a community has formed around it.
I’m wondering if Chris Walken or Samuel L. Jackson have become sort of “self-aware” camp stars. They are well respected thespians who tend to lend their talents to material which is (forgive me for saying) well below their talents. Knowing that you are working on something below your talents is an interesting quandary and I wonder what their justification is for doing so.
Snakes on a Plane, Balls of Fury, Deep Blue Sea, Envy…. so many forgettable films anchored by these two and it seems like they do it simply because they enjoy the appeal of simple material. I mean we all know of Jackson’s notorious requirement for starring in SoaP; the title had to remain ‘Snakes on a Plane’.
Neither seem to take themselves too seriously and I think that is part of the appeal they consistently have. Walken has been around for the better part of 40 years and he has always maintained a following and admiration from his peers, even when his delivery and take on the characters he plays rarely strays very far from his trademark delivery and mannerisms.
I definitely think that both of them are aware of their own cult/camp statuses. I mean, the very fact that Samuel L. Jackson insisted on starring in a movie called Snakes on a Plane shows, to me, that he understands the inherent silliness of these movies he’s in. I mean, Christopher Walken was in a Fatboy Slim video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMZwZiU0kKs) .
There’s kind of an interesting commentary on the nature of a Hollywood acting career there, and how I think these guys figured out the Long Tail model before that phrase was coined. Christopher Walken and Samuel L. Jackson found their niche, their core group of people who enjoy what they do, and they can have a successful career playing to mostly those people. If they tried to choose projects to make them into general stars like George Clooney or someone, they’d have failed. They’re embracing the idea of a fanbase rather than trying to sell a minority product to a majority of people, and, most importantly, they did it before it was cool.
Which sort of raises the question of, if someone did the same now, would it still be cult, or would it just be the way things work now, given the Long Tail model?
I just wanted to post a link to “Snakes on an Elevator,” the Swarthmore version of “Snakes on a Plane.”
I was struck by our conversation on the different levels of fandom and what fans of different texts/objects choose to call themselves. Someone (sorry I can’t remember who) brought up the idea that aficionados or connoisseurs or cognoscenti eschew “bad” parts of their chosen text. I think that’s an interesting comment, considering the names that those people choose to call themselves. They have an implication of high class by using foreign words, specifically of Italian and French origin. To be very Barthes-ian about it, those words definitely have a connotation of class, wealth, social status, intellect, and, quite frankly, snobbery. Therefore, it seems that those names can only be applied to what dominant society deems higher-class fan texts/objects. However, that being said, the term “connoisseur,” in my mind, is only applicable to things that can be physically consumed, like food or wine. Aficionado seems more likely to be applied to non-consumable items, like photography or music. Does anyone else have more thoughts on these words? What kind of system of capital they establish (Bourdieu)? To what particular objects/texts these words can be applied?