Bad, schlocky, camp, etc?

[yendi]

In a comment in yesterday's post, xiphias asks:

Is it possible to make a distinction between "bad movies", "schlocky movies", "exploitative movies", and "cheesy movies?"

My short answer is, "sometimes." I'll also throw "camp movies" into the mix.

That said, I'm also a little overwhelmed at work today, with no time to seriously write up my thoughts. So I'm throwing the discussion open to all of you. Discuss amongst yourselves, and let me know how you distinguish between the various kinds of movies listed above.

Comments

[crwilley.livejournal.com]

One criteria that seems to matter: How seriously does the movie take itself? A movie presenting itself as Serious Cinema is far more likely to fall into the categories of 'bad' or 'exploitative' than any of those others; meanwhile, if the jokes are making themselves, it gets consideration for some other category first (but may still be bad).

[vanguardcdk.livejournal.com]

I would say "bad" and "cheesy" are general terms. Any movie can fall into those. If they're lucky they fall so far and so hard they end up in the "so-bad-it's-good" category.

Campy movies would be those that know full well they're bad, acknowledge their badness and decide to have a blast anyways.

Exploitive movies are those that take an element of other films and go totally, unapologetically bonkers with it. Usually this element is fairly low-brow like sex, violence, gore or "bad-ass"ness of the characters.
In effect if a normal movie is a chocolate chip cookie, the exploitive movie is chocolate chocolate-chip cookie dipped in fudge with white chocolate stripes. (note to self, never make movie analogies before lunch)

Anyways, this is just my humble thoughts about it. :)

[bassfingers.livejournal.com]

"Bad" generally shows a lack of skill or effort. It can also indicate something that may have worked in the hands of another writer or director, but ultimately falls short in its final release. Studio interference may be another excuse for a bad film.

I tend to associate "schlocky" with over-dramatizing one or more elements of the film, thus taking itself way too seriously. Schlock films can sometimes be identified by their pretentious directors who have reputations for producing such schlock. (Some John Carpenter, Quentin Tarrentino, etc...)

"Exploitative" is similar to schlock, but exaggerates stereotypes of races or gender more often than not. Lots of T&A, lots of uneducated black men with giant afros. (Some time I've got to see Petey Wheatstraw (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0078078/)...)

"Cheesy" and "camp" are a little harder for me to differentiate. Personally I think I see cheesy as a subcategory of camp. Cheese films are camp films with an 80's film aesthetic. They're cheap, yet shiny, showing some signs of poking fun at themselves much the way a good camp film should.

[bassfingers.livejournal.com]

I'll go one step further and speculate that any film can be given an injection of "camp" by hiring Jack Nicholson to say the word "rhubarb" on screen.

[rowancat.livejournal.com]

My current definition of bad movies is most of the Hollywood
"remakes" of past films.
The way they are advertised, they seem to think nobody can
remember further back than ten years. They won't leave horror
films alone.

It won't be long before they'll shamelessly redo films like
Casablanca and Citizen Kane
claiming they're better ("brighter and shinier with more special effects")
than the originals.

And i've been seeing ads on tv for nothing but "Dumb and Dumber" type comedies" all last year that put Dumb and Dumber in the ranks of classics
by default.

[coffeeinhell.livejournal.com]

I've always been frustrated that so many people use the word "bad" to describe movies that they just didn't like, for whatever reason. You don't hear people do that with, say, books -- "That was a bad book. It confused me."

But folks do it with movies all the time. If they just don't get what the director was trying to do, the movie was "bad." Even critics do this. Stephanie Zacharek's review of Kill Bill was a fine example, in which she turned herself wrongside-out to try and look like she knew what she's talking about, but gave herself away by describing Uma Thurman's costume as "a yellow motocross-style jacket and leggings, like the love child of Steve McQueen and Emma Peel." If she doesn't even recognize Bruce Lee's outfit from Game of Death, she certainly doesn't get the homages to Shaw Brothers' yakuza films and blaxploitation flicks. She thought the movie was bad because she didn't understand it.

In my opinion (for what it's worth) a movie is only bad if it fails to achieve what it sets out to do. You can't measure Cries and Whispers with the same yardstick as The 40-Year-Old Virgin.

And to address your OP's question (who asked you, not me, so I should just shut up, really) "schlock" "cheese" and "exploitation" are descriptives completely separate from "bad," usually employed to label lower budget films -- "B movies." There are good cheesy movies (those that achieve their goal (John Carpenter's They Live) and bad cheesy movies that fail to deliver (John Carpenter's Village of the Damned).

Also -- the difference between "cheese" and "camp"? Cheese is cheap, camp is flamboyant. Other than that, they're very similar.

[chaoset.livejournal.com]

I would hesitate to call They Live cheesy because, while being a B film, it succeeded admirably at being at a horror/black comedy (which is what it set out to be, from my understanding). In fact, I can't think of any 80s Carpenter films that qualify as cheesy. Schlocky and campy, sure (Escape from New York, Big Trouble in Little China), but not cheesy.

"Also -- the difference between "cheese" and "camp"? Cheese is cheap, camp is flamboyant. Other than that, they're very similar."
I mostly agree with this, but I'd add that camp generally implies intent to make something somewhat silly/funny/etc. Cheese is usually unintendedly so.

[chaoset.livejournal.com]

Gah, I realised there was an easier way of describing camp as I hit post: It's made with a knowing wink.

[coffeeinhell.livejournal.com]

I thought about this last night, actually, and yeah -- the real difference between cheese and camp is that cheese is sincere, often earnestly so, while camp has a tongue-in-cheek playfulness.

And They Live may have been a poor choice. Cheese is often associated more with dramas, and They Live is anything but. I think it's always seemed a bit cheesy to me because it's one of the few Carpenter films where the low budget really shows. I love the movie, don't get me wrong, but it has surprisingly poor production values for a Carpenter, who usually manages to make even the cheapest movie look really good.

[chaoset.livejournal.com]

"...tongue-in-cheek playfulness."
Here I am flailing about on four hours of sleep, and you come out with the exact term for which I was looking.

"I think it's always seemed a bit cheesy...who usually manages to make even the cheapest movie look really good."
I think the cheapness of it added to the overall look and feel, but I can certainly understand why you'd say that.

[coffeeinhell.livejournal.com]

See, and I was thinking that "knowing wink" was the better term, and kicked myself for not putting it that way.