Hairspray (2007)

“What is missing from “Hairspray” is anything beyond the faintest whisper of camp,” or so says the New York Times review.  The 2007 version of Hairspray may not live up to the “campiness” of the original, but it definitely comes close.  Sure, it’s missing the bomb placed in the giant wig, but it does have Tracy riding a garbage truck and Link creepily singing to a picture of Tracy in Tracy’s room, complete with licking the photograph and eating the candy bar he finds underneath her pillow.  This is “the essence of unnatural.”  The film exaggerates almost everything; the dancing, the hair, what it’s like to fall in love.  I think this it more than a mere “whisper” of camp.

                While the two are connected through how campy they are, one cannot ignore the numerous differences between the films.  Let’s start with the most obvious; the remake is a full fledged musical.  This is to be expected with the success of turning Waters’ original screenplay into a musical, but it still changes the way the film is received.  I for one think this adds to the campiness of the film.  It’s unnatural to sing a song about the boy you have a crush on after he simply bumps you, not to mention the fact that it’s complete with a dance.  On some levels this may make it harder for the audience to relate to, but then again it definitely keeps their attention.  The review comments on how clear the songs are, saying that they “are usually adequate, occasionally inspired and only rarely inane. And they are sung with impeccable diction and unimpeachable conviction by a lively young cast.”  The songs might be cheesy, but we find ourselves singing along.  This is where the “you don’t want to like it, but you do” aspect of camp comes into play for many of us.

Another main difference was the role of Edna.  Although both films used a male actor, her role seems to shift.  In the first one, she takes charge right away, but in the second one, she hasn’t set foot out of the house in years and does not come up with the idea of being Tracy’s manager on her own; Tracy has to talk her into it.  I think this change was added to revamp the issue of weight.  Initially, it was in the background, but the remake brings it to life with small changes like Edna’s lack of confidence, the constant need for food, and Link’s slip up of telling Tracy she is “too big of an adventure” for him to take on.  While subtle, these changes help reinforce the idea that one can be big and beautiful, which seemed to be even more lost along the way in 2007 than it was in 1988.

They also cut out the role of Amber’s father.  He is only referenced once when Amber’s mother claims that he “accidentally suffocated himself.”  This plays up the idea of feminism through one character alone.  Velma VonTussle is a woman of power.  She gets what she wants by any means necessary and ultimately is very successful.  She has become the embodiment of the upper class, and we can’t stand her.  Maybe her character is overplayed to make up for losing the strong, confident woman through and through in Edna (though she does gain confidence as the film progresses) but then again maybe this was an intentional stab at the upper class.  She is, in fact, one of few against integration and is certainly one of the most vocal.

The ending was also quite different as it was an organized protest that caused trouble, and Tracy never actually spent time in jail; she was a runaway that was never caught.  In this film, they do not need to take it to the law (the governor) but it seems as though the integrated dance floor is the symbol for the entire city of Baltimore.  The Corny Collins Show has the power to decide the fate of the city.  Throughout the final scenes, the film does a good job of making law enforcement seem completely useless.  They lie about what happened with Tracy, drastically exaggerating the minor incident, and they can’t seem to do their jobs well as they not only fail to find Tracy, but also fall for the trick that initially makes them bring her into the studio. 

As far as ideology, both films go against it any try to promote a change, usually in the form of acceptance (of race, weight, powerful women, interracial couples, etc.) but I think the two films have a slight shift in emphasis.  I already mentioned that the remake discussed weight more in depth, most likely due to the media influence during the time it was released.  The most prominent issue in both films is without a doubt the issue of segregation.  I found it a little offensive in the first one when the black kids were sent to special education to “prohibit them from advancing” and noticed how that was cut out of the remake and replaced with a detention room that the students actually wanted to get in.  I think cutting this was a wise choice.  We all remember the heat Tropic Thunder got in for saying “the r-word” which I believe was said in the original film.  I also noticed the scene added with them all in the bus in which the three white kids (Penny, Tracy, and Link) were sitting in the very back seat of the bus while the front was filled with the black kids.  This might have been in the original (I am not 100% sure) but it represents a complete shit in ideology as it reverses the norm.

The original seemed to embrace the era of the 60’s; great hair, great style, unforgettable dance moves, but I felt at times the remake made fun of it.  Most obvious is the scene in which the pregnant women are all smoking and drinking in the bar, a socially acceptable thing in the 60’s.  The opinion on relationships also saw a slight shift as the original placed a lot of emphasis on who was “going steady” and who was not, but the remake had two teen couples; Link and Tracy and Penny and Seaweed.  We knew very little about the council members and their social lives, yet the movie still felt complete.  This film also brought to life the single, working mother through Velma.  While it wasn’t unheard of in the 60’s, single parents were much more common in 2007 so it was fitting to have representation (although definitely not the best).

As the film adapted to better fit the new era, the ideologies took a slight shift as well.  Unfortunately, we are still face to face with many of the same issues, though some, such as integration, have definitely been downsized.  In the long run, Hairspray can speak to nearly every generation.  As the review states, ““Hairspray” is fundamentally a story about being young — about the triumph of youth culture, about the optimistic, possibly dated belief that the future will improve on the present.”  That message just doesn’t get old.

Hairspray (1988)

“I’m big, blonde, and beautiful.”  Yes, Tracy Turnblad is all of the above, and refreshingly accepted for this.  In a world where women were expected to have the perfect hair, skin, and overall immaculate body in order to be accepted, Tracy defies the odd by winning the crown and getting the guy for being who she is (plus a little blonde hair dye).  Her weight was far from an issue unless she was the target of an easy hit by the jealous Amber.  While feminism plays a big role in this film, the main issue is segregation.  By displacing the issue and condensing it to Baltimore’s teens, John Waters can send messages to the people who can make the biggest change: the teens.

I think that the teen generation of the 60’s took a larger political stance than most other generations, and targeting teens was a good move.  Roger Ebert, however, disagrees.  In his review he claims that “The movie probably has the most to say to people who were teenagers in the early '60s, but they are, I suppose, the people least likely to see this movie. It also will appeal to today's teenagers, who will find that every generation has its own version of Corny Collins, and its own version of the Council, designed to make you feel like a worthless reject on the trash heap of teenage history.”  Ok, so the scene with the spotlight made us both feel bad for the girls subjected to it while making us relive our own high school traumas, but doesn’t that help us relate to the film?  And maybe the teens from the 60’s won’t want to see this film, but Ebert can’t deny that it will appeal to the teens of the 80’s (and following decades) which is who I think Waters wants to appeal to.

It doesn’t take research to show that segregation, while on a much smaller level, is still an issue we are dealing with.  If one can persuade teens to reject segregation and accept integration, we stand a better chance of sticking with that ruling.  If a movie wants to do that, we must relate to the characters that make the decision to integrate.  Tracy Turnblad’s character handles this job extremely well.  She is not the average lead role but is a more traditional teenage girl.  Unlike Amber is not from a rich, well off family, doesn’t have the perfect life or the perfect body, but still manages to be a beloved character we all want to win.  While I feel most can identify with Tracy at one point or another, Waters represents a variety of women, giving us the opportunity to identify with at least one.  This was a great move on his part because it shows both sides of women and does not always stereotype them.

One of the best examples of this was Edna and Velma.  These women could not be further apart, however both demonstrate control.  Velma’s control is in a much more obvious sense, but Edna still steps up as Tracy’s agent and leads the fight for her daughter when things go south.  By doing this, the film shows that in reality, women have multiple personalities, and one individual woman can change identities depending on the circumstances.  The representation continues with Motor mouth Mabel.  She takes on a motherly role and the characters almost unanimously love her even though she is black.  For her, color is not an issue as she welcomes Penny and Tracy without hesitation.  Unlike Penny’s mother, she is ok with her son dating a white girl.  Again, this shows the differences in women.  One is crazy, the other is logical, and the logical one is in fact black.

The interracial couple is another controversial point.  Generally it was frowned upon and avoided in films, but this movie embraces it and suggests that it is far from a bad thing.  Their relationship (despite its cheesiness like most in the film) is one of the better ones as they don’t quickly grow tired of each other and swap partners. 

Roper may believe this movie lacks any message, but I disagree with that.  Don’t let the comedy fool you.  I think it uses comedic relief to appeal to the audience and relieve tension on numerous controversial issues.  Maybe changing her hair from a ratted out (or feathered) poof to stick straight is a cheesy symbol for change, but it worked, and it is a comedy.  I would say that I was disappointed in the representation of men and they generally were left in the background and feminism was in the foreground much more than masculinity.  We know very litle about Link and Corny except for the fact that they are for integration, and the husbands seem to simply go along with their wives for the most part.  I do still feel that the film deals with numerous issues: weight, feminism, stereotypes, integration, politics, interracial relationships…I think in the wide variety of issues, one can easily find a message.