Comments on: Shame on Hairspray http://www.theottery.com/2008/01/shame-on-hairspray/ "If an otter can't have fun doing something, it just simply won't do it." Thu, 08 Jan 2009 13:38:53 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Steve http://www.theottery.com/2008/01/shame-on-hairspray/#comment-1871 Steve Tue, 15 Jan 2008 00:17:32 +0000 http://www.theottery.com/2008/01/shame-on-hairspray/#comment-1871 Yes, the revised 2007 Hairspray stinks both aesthetically and morally. Really, really, really stinks, as I've mentioned a couple times in my own blog and intend to eventually write about more fully as you have done here. I might steal some of your points. However, the 1988 original does not, and I almost decided to teach both films in my theory class this semester. It's fascinating how just a few tiny, tiny changes in plot, dialogue, tone, and style can so completely change a movie. For instance, in the original John Waters movie, the detention scene that you mention is contextualized exactly as you say it ought to have been in the 2007 version. And I'm with you. I can't understand why this movie wasn't slammed in the press for being racist shit. But what I really can't understand is why John Waters would participate in it, because his original 1988 film is actually pretty good. Campy, for sure, but that's what it is -- probably one of the best examples of camp I've seen. In contrast, the 2007 version can't seem to make up its mind whether it's campy, sincere, slapstick, romantic... or what. Yes, the revised 2007 Hairspray stinks both aesthetically and morally. Really, really, really stinks, as I’ve mentioned a couple times in my own blog and intend to eventually write about more fully as you have done here. I might steal some of your points.

However, the 1988 original does not, and I almost decided to teach both films in my theory class this semester. It’s fascinating how just a few tiny, tiny changes in plot, dialogue, tone, and style can so completely change a movie. For instance, in the original John Waters movie, the detention scene that you mention is contextualized exactly as you say it ought to have been in the 2007 version.

And I’m with you. I can’t understand why this movie wasn’t slammed in the press for being racist shit. But what I really can’t understand is why John Waters would participate in it, because his original 1988 film is actually pretty good. Campy, for sure, but that’s what it is — probably one of the best examples of camp I’ve seen. In contrast, the 2007 version can’t seem to make up its mind whether it’s campy, sincere, slapstick, romantic… or what.

]]>