| | Location: Home » Theater Books » Incongruous Entertainment: Camp, Cultural Value, and the MGM Musical | |
|
|
Incongruous Entertainment: Camp, Cultural Value, and the MGM Musical |  | Author: Steven Cohan Publisher: Duke University Press Category: Book
List Price: $24.95 Buy New: $18.95 as of 7/29/2010 14:32 CDT details You Save: $6.00 (24%)
New (9) Used (5) from $10.45
Seller: Macater Books Rating: 3 reviews Sales Rank: 1266809
Media: Paperback Pages: 384 Number Of Items: 1 Shipping Weight (lbs): 1.2 Dimensions (in): 9.2 x 6 x 1
ISBN: 0822335956 Dewey Decimal Number: 791.433 EAN: 9780822335955 ASIN: 0822335956
Publication Date: November 30, 2005 Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days
| |
| Also Available In:
|
| Similar Items:
| |
| Editorial Reviews:
Product Description With their lavish costumes and sets, ebullient song and dance numbers, and iconic movie stars, the musicals that mgm produced in the 1940s seem today to epitomize camp. Yet they were originally made to appeal to broad, mainstream audiences. In this lively, nuanced, and provocative reassessment of the mgm musical, Steven Cohan argues that this seeming incongruity—between the camp value and popular appreciation of these musicals—is not as contradictory as it seems. He demonstrates that the films’ extravagance and queerness were deliberate elements and keys to their popular success. In addition to examining the spectatorship of the mgm musical, Cohan investigates the genre’s production and marketing, paying particular attention to the studio’s employment of a largely gay workforce of artists and craftspeople. He reflects on the role of the female stars—including Judy Garland, Debbie Reynolds, Esther Williams, and Lena Horne—and he explores the complex relationship between Gene Kelley’s dancing and his masculine persona. Cohan looks at how, in the decades since the 1950s, the marketing and reception of the mgm musical have negotiated the more publicly recognized camp value attached to the films. He considers the status of Singin’ in the Rain as perhaps the first film to be widely embraced as camp; the repackaging of the musicals as nostalgia and camp in the That’s Entertainment! series as well as on home video and cable; and the debates about Garland’s legendary gay appeal among her fans on the Internet. By establishing camp as central to the genre, Incongruous Entertainment provides a new way of looking at the musical.
|
| Customer Reviews: Academic Work of Interest for Die-Hard Fans January 1, 2008 Melissa Halverson (Tacoma, WA) 0 out of 1 found this review helpful
As a whole, the book delves into the idea of "camp" in context of the MGM classic musicals. The Introduction gives the reader a very lengthy definition of "camp" and it's relation to homosexuality, queerness, and gayness (which he describes as all different ideas).
If you can actually sit down interrupted, the book hits on some unique ideas, including the "butch-ness" of Esther Williams, the sissy, yet heteroerotic Gene Kelly, the cultural value of Judy Garland information on the internet, and an entire chapter devoted to Singin' in the Rain, by far my favorite chapter.
This chapter felt the least wordy, least academic. It delves into the period of silent movie to talkie transition historically. It also discusses SITR's reflection and fusion of the most often cited early MGM musicals, "Broadway Melody" and "Hollywood Revue," as well as why the movie stands the test of time.
I'm not a film student, just a film buff, and I'm glad I read the book. May be a little unaccessible-- the author could have easily truncated and simplified his book for a more general, non-academic audience, but you can get through it. Wish the paperback wasn't so expensive.
ACADEMIC ASPIC = INDIGESTIBLE PROSE December 8, 2008 J. J. Smith (Illinois) 0 out of 3 found this review helpful
Does anybody still eat aspic? No? Then don't sample this book. It's dense with the kind of pretentious academic jargon that makes books of this kind unreadable, pretentious, and depressing. One example: academics and others have been hinting for years at the sexual ambiguity of Gene Kelly's screen persona, but instead of just coming out (pun intended) and saying it, they have to beat around the bush (pun not intended). Cohan does the same dance at such excrutiating length you'll want to scream, even if you're not a queen. Please note that all the praise from the official reviews is from other academics. What an industry! What a farce.
Yawn. June 25, 2010 How a single work can manage to suck every ounce of joy from should have been a fascinating and juicy topic is beyond comprehension. What a wasted opportunity.
|
|
|
| |
|