THE FAT SPY (Jospeh Cates, 1965)  

Camp. What is “camp?” Camp is a style. It is a style that utilizes exaggerated aesthetics and relishes in lavishness. In fact, in her essay, “Notes on ‘Camp,’” Susan Sontag remarks on the “spirit of extravagance” which is the hallmark of Camp. She uses the example of a dress consisting of three million feathers. This dress would not be camp if it was made as a “joke” but only if it were to be taken seriously because the essential part of pure camp is seriousness, or a seriousness that fails. Another example of so-called “Pure Camp,” is the masterpiece film The Fat Spy.

There are many elements of this film that can be considered “camp” but I shall begin with my favorite: the dance scene. In the dance scene in this movie, the audience is subjected to a horrifyingly long scene in which several teenagers—and one old man trying to become their friend—dance in an ultra-slow, ultra-thrusty way which I can only assume was supposed to be sexy. This assumption of sensuality comes not from the actual dancing itself, but from the camera shots the chests of girls in bikinis and the torsos of men without their shirts. This intended sexy dance scene is actually pathetic in its execution and leaves audiences wondering, “Are these people on some sort of drugs?” By the end of this scene, even the actors look bored with how long and drawn out this disaster of a dance number is. Was this scene thrown in to fill up time? An educated guess would be, yes.

Even the names of the characters in the film, which are intended to invoke a particular attitude toward that character, are overdone and then become comedic. One such character is “Camille Salamander.” This name was most likely intended to be evil and somewhat eccentric but was overshot and sounds like someone out of a cartoon, like something campy.

The aspect of romance in this film is also campy. As if two lovers lying on the beach was not enough romance for the audience to swallow, these same lovers break into song. And as if that was not enough romance, they then ride white horses into the frick’n sunset. Whoa. This is definitely an example of something that Susan Sontag would label not romantic, but “romantic.” These shots are typical of what is believed to be romantic (i.e. the beach scene form the popular movie of that day, From Here to Eternity) and are added in as if they are strictly some aesthetic aspect. (Oooh, look at the pretty people on the pretty ponies in front of the pretty beach). There is what Sontag would call “a large element of artifice” in this particular sequence in the film. It is as if these actors are acting as if they think that an audience would expect them to act in regards to romance and romantic behavior.

There are some aspects of film that guarantee that a film is not camp such as a film that is just plain “bad” or a film that evokes a feeling of empathy. Camp films, however, are valued not on the seriousness or dignity of the work, but on the complete opposite. Those films that do not do what they intend to do, or unintentionally overdo what meant to be done, they are camp in it’s purist form.

[The author of this text would like to argue that this text is unintentional camp, but in doing so would make it almost intentional.]

This movie fails to fail at comedy, or in other words, this film tries to be Camp, but does not succeed. So this movie tries to be camp, but fails miserably, so that makes it Camp? I would say it is not Camp because of the fact that it is a spoof. It knows that it is somewhat funny and that is why it cannot be Camp.

This film is definitely mocking beach-party films from the 1960s. The characters Frankie and Nanette (hmm…could this be a parody of Frankie and Annette?) kissing on the beach with the tide coming in is obviously satirizing scenes in From Here to Eternity. Scenes of them riding horses on the beach and singing songs together are making fun of almost all “summer-lovin” beach blanket movies. Other evidence for satire is the random dancing with all of the treasure-seeking teenagers. The song is not necessarily upbeat and too happy, yet it is not exactly slow and not at all gloomy. It seems that the characters are dancing out of routine/boredom. Another point of spoofing is the way the characters speak in the film: when one of the kids says, “You dig?” and then they begin to dig, or quotes like, “The heart of a flower beats within the heart of a rhinoceros,” and the preciseness of “Let’s set up camp, spread out and pitch tents, get food...."

Susan Sontag describes camp as “A relish for the exaggeration of sexual characteristics and personality mannerisms.” She actually names Jayne Mansfield as “corny flamboyant female-ness.” So one might think this film is Camp because Mansfield is in this film, but it is not. Jayne Mansfield was cast to play a Jayne Mansfield part. At the time this film was made, Jayne Mansfield was already known as the blonde bimbo or sex kitten for at least ten years. Knowing that she had massive breasts and could act dense, the filmmakers were obviously reaching for comedy and Camp-ness.

Everything about this film is intentional. From the awful songs and dancing to Camille whipping her servant, the entire movie is deliberate. Sontag states, “The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious.” The only thing that may be deliberate is over-exaggeration. In Herman’s office there is a plain, large lipstick poster on the wall and a lipstick box and big red lips on his desk. These are not exaggerated. They are noticeable, but not overly conspicuous. It seems that they are put there for the audience to know that the scene is set in Herman’s office and that he works for a lipstick company. However, we already know this from an earlier scene which involved a very slippery lipstick. The not-so-quite over-exaggeration of “American” was odd too. “Good ole’ AMERICAN TEENAGERS (…yuck)” and American flags are used occasionally but not too much. Sontag would sum up the film by reasoning, “What is extravagant in an inconsistent or an unpassionate way is not Camp.”

This film was very confusing regarding its Camp-ness. It had genuine funny parts, but failed in others. It also tried too hard to be “campy.” The filmmakers recognizably showed that they were trying to make the film “Camp,” but ended up spoofing it instead.

There was nothing sublime about The Fat Spy. There were a couple moments which were enjoyable, but as a whole, the movie displayed a self-reproaching earnestness to parody the beach movies of its decade. It aimed for camp, but fell unbearably short, and not in a campy way.

Sontag makes it quite clear that the good camp—that which is sublime—is naive. She says on the subject, “The pure examples of Camp are unintentional; they are dead serious.” The Fat Spy was quite aware of the fact that it was attempting to “camp.” Its cornball humor, allusions to other beach movies (such as the girl’s name being Nanette rather than Annette), and physical gags were all executed with not only parody, but also self-parody. The actors and dialogue made it apparent that the movie was aware of itself “camping,” or as I would argue, only attempting to camp. One of the most obvious examples of this during the movie is the instance when Nanette began singing and dancing as Dodo and Frankie dug for the ship. Not only was there an absence of a physical source of music, as well as the female bodies to which the back up singers on the audio track should belong, but also—and this blows my mind—the two boys clapped and acknowledged that she was singing! So this was not some private, internal singing like Sandra’s in Grease, but rather was audible in the real world to all characters even though there was no source of music in the scene. It certainly broke diegesis and upset the viewer. The director, screenwriter, and actors had to be aware that this was a ridiculous scene and thus the scene also became a self-parody. The reason the scene was created, though, was to make a campy parody of other beach movies.

The movie does not shoot for the stars, wildly over exaggerate, or seriously attempt to make a wonderful, teen-appealing, beach movie. Instead, it attempts to go “camping” (as proven in the previous paragraph). Sontag says “intending to be campy is always harmful.” Always. The movie’s spectrum of characters, while colorful, does not express a wildness or naïve seriousness inherent in pure camp. This can bee seen in the dancing of Irving in the beginning of the movie. He has a spyglass and is goofily dancing to—as hard to believe as this is—the music floating off the peer the teenagers are dancing on. The movie, at the same time, makes it clear exactly how far away these teenagers are (i.e. the need of the spyglass to see them) which makes it highly unlikely the music could possibly reach the fat buffoon. This is a mild exaggeration upon normal circumstances. Irving did not break dance; no, he just twisted his wide hips and grooved to the music. He did not gyrate wildly, wear a bizarre outfit, or attempt gymnastics in the sand. By all observations, the dancing is of a normal sort though the movie makes the attempt to be silly or campy because Irving is dancing to the young generation’s music floating off a distant peer. As Sontag would say, “it is too mediocre in its ambition.” It is not over the top enough, not naïve, or innocent.

This movie is not serious enough to be camp. “There is seriousness in Camp (seriousness in the degree of the artist’s involvement) and, often, pathos.” The director seems to poke fun of the movie especially with the use of “special effects.” Dodo and his Mermaid sing-thinking their thoughts to one another is completely…laughable. The director knows this and even added thought bubbles to the scene! Thoroughly unrealistic and intentionally preposterous. The directors’ choices make it evident that he is not seriously involved in this film. He has no grand aspirations and does not make the attempt to involve the audience in a dramatic film but instead attempts camp, and fails.

There could also be the argument that the movie is indeed camp. The characters of Camille, Junior, and Irving are good examples of being one intense thing without character development. There are other examples as well, but I chose this movie as un-campy because I personally felt no enjoyment at watching this movie. I got the feeling that it was self-mocking and not at all serious about its intentions as an honestly “good” 60s beach movie.

A movie such as Joseph Cates’s 1966 film The Fat Spy whets the appetite of the true Camper in its extravagant excessiveness in every line, actor, and plot point. Its mixture of pure Camp and deliberate Camp, as well as a few instances that are the definition of Camp, and thus are Camp only because of their passionate failure at their passionate attempt to be Camp, thus making it the pinnacle of Camp.
One instance of pure Camp in the film is when Irving first introduces himself to the group of hip treasure-seeking teenyboppers. As he becomes encircled by the scantily-clad hot bodies, the camera allows the viewer to see things as Irving might with the intention of making the “all-American teenagers” seem imposing or threatening for comical means. As Sontag states, Camp “sees everything in quotation marks.” Instead of seeing the teens as imposing or threatening, they are seen as “imposing” and “threatening,” as the group circles around Irving as a pack of hungry wolves would encircle its prey. The ultimate failure of the scene is the camera’s attempt to maintain a close up of each actor. As the circle alternates between male and female, a height adjustment is made with each new character. This completely removes any seriousness from the scene, as it is more reminiscent of a merry-go-round ride than a comedic intimidating pack.

Though there are a few pure Camp points in the movie, there are multiple deliberate Camp points. One such point occurs when Camilla and Herman find one of the twin black roses and hastily devour it. This scene reeks of Camp. According to Sontag, Camp is “playful and anti-serious” and “proposes a comic vision of the world.” Both of these points exist in this scene. The pair first find the rose, then grapple briefly over it, and finally tear the poor thing to pieces with their greed to become more youthful. The acting itself is entirely overdone as it is throughout the majority of the movie. Adding to this, and making the point that the film is deliberately trying to be Camp is the sound effect of two wild beasts fighting passionately over some prized food. Seeing the two fight with such extravagant overacting, combined with the sound effects, leaves no doubt that the scene was attempting to be Camp which knew itself to be Camp, and, as predicted by Sontag, was less satisfying than moments of pure Camp in the film.

Though the film may be classified as “classical Camp” by many critics, The Fat Spy also overtly attempts to be Camp, fails spectacularly at being Camp, thus being Camp at different points in the film. One such point is when the character of Camilla is first introduced to the audience. Her servant interrupts her meditation hour, and thus receives a “harsh” whipping from his mistress. The whipping is obviously meant to evoke feelings from a Camp-loving audience; it is so blatantly, obviously horrendous that it practically jumps up and down screaming “Look at me! I’m Campy! Love me!” Its passionate attempt, and even more passionate failure, at being Camp is thus Camp due to its blatancy at attempting to be Camp. In this regard, the scene attracts the serious Camper that it so noticeably yearns for, but only in its extreme yearning.

The Fat Spy is an amalgamation of three important factors concerned with Camp: that which is but doesn’t know that it is, that which is and obviously so, and that which tries to be but fails. In this regard, it covers the spectrum of the study of Camp, making a perfect example for any amateur Camper, and earning a special place in the heart of the most scrupulous Camp lover.

   >  >  >   c u l t  h o m e 


Page layout and design ©2004 by Hugh S. Manon for the Oklahoma State University Film Program. Some images on this page are the property of a third party and are used with permission. The marks of Oklahoma State University are controlled under a licensing program administered by The Collegiate Licensing Company.

Last update: 8/27/2004