Occasions like this are why I choose to continue to review films that don’t have audio description, with the hopes of having a discussion about accessibility that has some kind of positive effect. When it came to Happy Campers, which I reviewed last week, I was sent a screener of Amy Nicholson’s documentary ahead of its debut across video-on-demand platforms. That review led to my discovery that the film did have a recorded audio description track that had been used in previous screenings, as Amy takes accessibility seriously. She personally spent time making sure that the audio description by ThreePlay made it to a screener link for me, so I can finally talk about the film in some sort of definitive nature.
Now having seen this film twice, there’s no doubt that Amy found a golden story here in a community of campers facing extinction as development moves in on their little slice of heaven. Her feature allows these residents to speak about their memories and leave a verbal legacy of all these stories that are subsequently being erased.
Notably, some standouts the first time for me were still the standouts the second time. how did that toilet get in that tree? what is a naked room? Where the hell is the possum coming from? These are the big questions. the audio description does bring context to the project, and it itself is a well produced track.
I’m aware it was Amy’s choice as director of the film to go with “man” and ‘woman” instead of all the names of the campers, and I’ll come back to that. Aside from that admitted stylistic choice, I felt like some of it was good, and some of it was lacking. I still never really felt like I had an idea of these peoples various castles. These homes are so important to the campers, but the description of them is actually quite sparse. You are more likely to get description of random items on the lawn, than furniture in a room, or even an understanding of how big a space anyone is in. Are these all campers? Singles? doubles? Did anyone build an actual cabin? It is really difficult to tell what they love so much, and what is being left behind.
I wasn’t even fully sure of the surroundings, in that feeling of region in America. this is kind of a problem potentially with the film as well, as Happy Campers really doesn’t contextualize much of where this camp is (in relation to anything), nor does it say why the land was sold, or to whom. I understand why this seems pointless, as even within the film, Amy is basically there with her camera until the end. So, there’s no “save the camp” movement to be had here. it can’t possibly become an activist documentary, so telling us the villain of this whole story seems like a moot point. it still, is an interesting one.
When we get to “man” and ‘woman”, we blind folk don’t have that facial recognition, so often times names just help us follow the same person through a project. The sad thing here is that the company and writer behind this narration didn’t step in and follow more traditional rules of audio description, like out of the Joel Snyder handbook. While some names are said aloud, which in the old guard way of producing the audio description would have allowed those people to have names, there are ample opportunities to use distinguishing characteristics to link from one man to the next time we see that man.
For example, at one point, there’s a husky man with a beard on a pontoon boat. In any other setting, he would always be the husky man with the beard, for contextual purposes. I have no idea if that man is in any other shot in the film. At one point, a woman has her hair color defined, but there isn’t consistently “a platinum blonde woman talks”” to connect her to any other time she’s featured either.
This could mean no one is featured in any other frame, and everyone is only shown once, and it could even mean that everyone who lives in this camp looks so similar that it would be like trying to find the differences in the children Of The Corn, or the Minions. At the top, the first couple is mentioned as being white, but that’s where that stops. So, is everyone white?
I love having racial/ethnic description so that we can have representation for communities that often lack said representation, and I don’t mind starting off with the white couple, since too often description tracks default (meaning they don’t mention the white people, and only denote people of color like they’re all unicorns). I’d like to believe this is reverse defaulting, and that was the only white couple, and everyone else was some representation of ethnic diversity, but I just think that’s highly unlikely.
I do typically like my activist documentaries, where I can be mad at the person for removing these people from the land, but I also acknowledge that the side effect of being very non-specific can also be another upside to the film. By presenting us with generalizations, you actually create this Anytown, USA feel to the film. By keeping everyone so poorly described in the audio description, in a weird way, coupling that with not knowing fully where they are, we relate to them on this personal level. Almost like those mysterious developers are coming for us next. That in and of itself is such an interesting prospect for people to take away, because if that is what you read into this, then these stories that seem so relatable, with a group of people who have this neighborly folksy charm, they almost feel like they’re your neighbors, and we need to pay more attention before someone comes and drops an Amazon distribution center on our house.
Amy Nicholson’s Happy Campers is thoughtful in its execution, and prioritizes the respect of individual memories over the individuality and specificity of this one camp, in this one place. even though the audio description isn’t what I would have fully wanted it to be, simply having it gave so much more context than having none. scenes where people aren’t talking actually had description of what was in frame,instead of just the nature sounds I got when the movie did not come with it. I do hope that the movie comes with the audio description track so I’m not the unicorn that experienced it, and others get it in their VOD rentals/purchases.
I’m interested to see how other people continue to relate to this group of Happy Campers. How much of yourself do you find in their situation, and am I right in my suspicion that the choices to not over contextualize will in turn give audiences the feel that this happened right down the street, to people they know? But I think, most of all, we all still want to know… did they ever catch the possum? Or, is there a sequel coming about a possum that is now cleverly haunting whatever was built there. Because if so, that’s one cool possum.
Quick Note: yes, i realize technically it is opossum, but so still puts that O there? Maybe I’m showing my own rural stakes.
Final Grade: A-
