Acting natural

I have to admit, one of the reasons I absolutely adore this show is the "camp". I don't think it was ever written to be camp, definitely not. But the absolute silliness of some scenes is highly endearing, you can't help but love the actors for being able to carry the show with such seriousness. I have never laughed at the show for being stupid, I have always laughed with affection.

rainey,i disagree camp is absolutely NOT something that one has to set out to be.it often only happens in retrospect.

But now we're talking about two entirely different things.  Those things that were MEANT to be  campy, and those that are (because of the passage of time, and changes in taste) PERCEIVED to be campy.

"Young Frankenstein" is about as deliberately campy as a film could be.
"Frankenstein" from the 1930's, most certainly was NOT meant to be camp...it was meant to be terrifying.  But it sure is looked upon as camp now, isn't it?

If "Dark Shadows" is perceived as campy, it absolutely falls into the later category. 

that said,i doubt that the d.s. writers set out to write a campy show.but one has to accept that there is that perception out there.

I guess we could argue left and right on the meaning of camp and if DS was camp. I still think there's pre-camp and camp DS. I'm also not convinced that after a couple of years into the show the writers hadn't decided to go for the "camp" value. I suspect it was deliberate and I think a poster here nailed it by stating that the writers, knowing who the fans were (pre-teens running home from school), got into writing silly campy stuff thinking that's what these kids wanted. I remember reading how Dan Curtis wanted more monsters, maybe because JF was exhausted and needed a break. Dan Curtis might have overestimated the vampire monster aspect of Barnabas and underestimated Barnabas' romantic and tragic appeal that would probably have been the case if he were no monster at all.

I think fans tolerated the camp out of a sincere affection for the show but I also think it's what lead DS to its downfall.

Well, all I know is that the actors, writers, directors and producers have continually said when asked that they never deliberately set out to make DS campy in any way, shape or form. If they had tried to camp it up, I can't really see why they wouldn't just admit it. But quite the opposite is actually the case - they become defensive whenever the idea that DS is campy is even suggested. So, take from that what you will...

I certainly agree with MB.  The DS actors become very defensive when DS is portrayed as being "campy."  It has been addressed many times at conventions and in assorted interviews that the cast played it straight as they considered it serious material, even the dumb scripts.  They were not "winking at the audience" while doing the show in the way, say, BATMAN did.  In the script or in adlibs it was wondered gee, whiz, it's as if someone wrote this for us to figure out and out and out said so at least once in my memory.

I didn't think the show campy when it was on and I don't think so now.  I have to admit the thought of it being camp has been as mystifying to me as the focus on bloopers at times.

Nancy

I guess we could argue left and right on the meaning of camp and if DS was camp. I still think there's pre-camp and camp DS. I'm also not convinced that after a couple of years into the show the writers hadn't decided to go for the "camp" value.

There's not any evidence of that from what survives of interviews with and about the writers of DS that I know of, is there?  Soaps were looked down enough in the industry at the time without a soap writer going for yet an ever more looked-down upon style/genre such as camp.  It doesn't make sense to me that a writer would do it, especially when DS had such unprecedented success with a straight story.

I suspect it was deliberate and I think a poster here nailed it by stating that the writers, knowing who the fans were (pre-teens running home from school), got into writing silly campy stuff

One of the reasons that Ramse Mosteller and other production personnel fought with Dan Curtis was because of his insistence on doing everything as quickly and intensely as possible, including the writing of the scripts.  He was not interested in pacing and really had no idea at the time why the show was such a success.   The development of Barnabas was subtle and I really don't think Mr. Curtis has ever been familiar with that word.  He had nothing to do with the casting of or development of Barnabas.  He wasn't even in the country at the time the casting was done or the initial scripts written.  JF and the writers met to talk about how the character could be developed. Curtis was never involved with that that I know of.  But I digress: the reason the scripts became silly and illogical is because the writers were compelled to write at a frenzy they couldn't cope with.  Who could?  How else can anyone explain that the writers of the Leviathan scripts had no idea of really what was going on in the very scripts they created?  I definitely do not think it was deliberate.

thinking that's what these kids wanted. I remember reading how Dan Curtis wanted more monsters, maybe because JF was exhausted and needed a break.

Actually, Stefan, that's not correct.  Curtis wanted a more frenzied pace for the series, not monsters.  It was Frid who went to him and said that it all too much for him and that if they wanted him to survive as an actor on the show, another leading man needed to be brought in.   Frid and others have told this story at conventions and I believe in some of KLS' publications.  That's where David Selby came in.

Dan Curtis might have overestimated the vampire monster aspect of Barnabas and underestimated Barnabas' romantic and tragic appeal that would probably have been the case if he were no monster at all.

Curtis' initial idea about what Barnabas should be was eventually revealed in HOUSE OF DARK SHADOWS.  His original concept of the vampire was to be a monster and nothing more, to last maybe a cycle (13 weeks) before being staked.    He did not, and has admitted as much, understand how much the public would be fascinated by Barnabas.  You're right: he underestimated the tragic, vunerable quality of Barnabas and the appeal it would have.

I think fans tolerated the camp out of a sincere affection for the show but I also think it's what lead DS to its downfall.

From what I understand, the ratings were just fine when the decision was made for DS to be cancelled.  The gore of the HODS movie concerned advertisers and parents about the series and there was also a change of programming vision at ABC.  Not only that but as some of the actors will tell you, they believe the constantly changing time periods and characters in the latter part of the series made the series unwatchable unless you stayed with it every single day.  There was much confusion about the plotlines.  Curtis' drive for more more more is what eventually lead to cancel cancel cancel IMO.

Nancy

I didn't think the show campy when it was on and I don't think so now.  I have to admit the thought of it being camp has been as mystifying to me as the focus on bloopers at times.

   I agree and am just as perplexed by the camp misperception and the blooper focus.  Yes, Dan Curtis insisted on adding increasingly macabre and involved elements to the plot.  Yes, many of the actors performed in an appropriately stylized fashion.  Some viewers can buy into the more fantastic storylines, and some can't stomach them very well.  Applying the campy label to DS because of those facts is simply inaccurate.   

My theory on this is that it wasn't the scripts... It wasn't the actors, actresses, producers, directors, etc. I think it was more to do with them not being able to do what shows  can do today. That is the ability to edit and reshoot scenes that didn't work the first time around. That was the major factor in why it came across as over the top sometimes.

The actors on Dark Shadows were under alot of pressure, because of how it was filmed and sometimes I  am certain that alot of the over the top acting came from nerves being on edge, because of them having to get the show wrapped at a certain time and on days when they were abit behind schedule. I'm certain that it showed up in their acting on certain days more than others.

As for the bloopers... Yes I like them... Simply because they were part of the show and, yes, sometimes they will make me smile... But that doesn't make me think any less of the actors and actresses acting abilities on Dark Shadows. That just showed they were human.

So I don't see Dark Shadows as being camp. Because considering they couldn't edit out mistakes or reshoot scenes that didn't quite go as planned. Dark Shadows still turned out to be a show worth watching.

FireRose

The actors on Dark Shadows were under alot of pressure, because of how it was filmed and sometimes I  am certain that alot of the over the top acting came from nerves being on edge, because of them having to get the show wrapped at a certain time and on days when they were abit behind schedule. I'm certain that it showed up in their acting on certain days more than others.

I've really had little complaint about the actors. I think most of them did the best the could under the circumstances and some were just plain excellent. Bloopers don't really bother me either, I tend to ignore them. My "beef" is with the writiing and story direction after 1795. It's hard not to think of something as camp when ya got a Vampire story, a Frankenstein type story, a Warlock type story, a Warewolf story and a Witch story all going on simultaneously. Where's Abbot and Costello or the Marx brothers when you need them? Something was going nutsy with those writers.

My "beef" is with the writiing and story direction after 1795. It's hard not to think of something as camp when ya got a Vampire story, a Frankenstein type story, a Warlock type story, a Warewolf story and a Witch story all going on simultaneously. Where's Abbot and Costello or the Marx brothers when you need them? Something was going nutsy with those writers.

But almost any article written that I have read that refers to Dark Shadows as being Campy conveys this point clearly. They aren't referring to the storylines. They are referring to the actors and actresses and how they portrayed their parts on the show in those storylines. So when I hear the term camp. That is what comes to mind and I think that is so unfair.

But now here's a question:  If Dark Shadows had been written in any other way using different stories than the Vampire, Frankenstein, Warlock, Werewolf and the Witch story. Would it have still been the same show and would we still be interested in watching it almost 40 years later?

FireRose

If the same show did not have that gorgeous B&W "Intro to Barnabas" and superb 1795, nope. If DS has started with the Dream Curse. I never would have been interested. Though I hear 1875 or (95?) is suppose to be good. The Bramwell/Catherine story was OK too.

We can debate the causes and intent of DS semi-campiness, but I bet we can all agree that it was never intended to (and didn't) reach the level of Campiness that "Batman In Color".  That was intentionally campy with plots that were almost always a bit goofy in some form.

Un-intentional camp and quaint-ness sometimes relates to the age of the show.  For example:
Several 80's shows look and sound campy now, because of there age and the change in writing and directing standards and practices.
Then again some 80's shows just weren't well written to begin with. 

If the same show did not have that gorgeous B&W "Intro to Barnabas" and superb 1795, nope. If DS has started with the Dream Curse. I never would have been interested. Though I hear 1875 or (95?) is suppose to be good. The Bramwell/Catherine story was OK too.

The very first episodes I watched featured the tail end of the Dream Curse storyline, and I became hooked subsequently.  I had to know who this "Cassandra" person was, and what her relationship with the odd Barnabas Collins entailed.  True, this is one of the wackier, more supernatural storylines that may or may not have been directed at the growing child viewers.  To each his or her own, I guess.  I never thought DS was campy; a little over the top and extremely dramatic (aren't all soap operas?) at times, yes, but not intentionally campy.

On a somewhat related note, late radio personality and DS fanatic Ron Barry was pretty addicted to the Adam/Eve/Blair storyline, and gave the show some exposure back in '68 while those episodes were airing.    

i think we're going to debate the meaning of "camp" endlessly...and i've certainly been thinking about it.
for me true camp requires some level of wit and sophistication and "batman" was just goofy and juvenile...it had no higher aspirations than what it was thus defies true camp.

to answer firerose's question would we still be watching/talking about d.s. if not for the vampire,frankenstein,warlock,werewolf and witch stories i can only speak for myself but i was hooked from episode one.long before i ever laid eyes on barnabas collins.i might be rare in this but as much as i enjoyed barnabas,julia and angelique i would have been perfectly content if the show continued to focus on victoria,the collins family and the assorted and sundry residents of collinsport.