Even you.
When I watch movies on TCM I usually skip the introduction that Ben Mankiewicz or others do, but I’ll go back and watch the intro only after watching the movie. I also don’t like reading in-depth movie reviews, worrying about having the movie spoiled.
To me, the only thing that could be considered “campy” or “so bad it’s good” is Martin Balsam’s fall down the stairs. It just looks ridiculously fake, arms pinwheeling while he stands stock still. It looks like he’s levitating down the stairs, and just completely destroys any suspension of disbelief. It’s the one bad shot in the whole movie.
I agree; he tried to get fancy, and it didn’t work out well.
FWIW I remember seeing Hitchcock’s trailer at the time - I was too young to be allowed to see the movie itself. And the way he introduced it was undoubtedly meant to be funny, and taken as such by the audience: when he talked of a clue being found “down there” in the most sombre voice, but obviously pointing to the toilet pan.
Seeing it again, and hearing the accompanying music, how could it not be camp and meant to be so?
Actually, it reminds me of a series of British B-movie crime stories that were written and presented very moralistically by the journalist Edgar Lustgarten. Could he have been riffing on those?
Hitchcock often used dark and over the top humor, campy is an apt description.
It may not be funny, but Norman Bates dressed up as his mother qualifies as campy in my book.
Hitchcock’s persona was that of someone who found the macabre to be humorous. “I’m going to have you on the edge of your seat/horrify you, and I’m going to enjoy it. You will too, after it’s over.”
That doesn’t make the film “funny”, though.
I thought muskmelons were cantaloupes?
Eh, Hitchcock was a rather nasty misogynist, and he liked making movies about beautiful women being killed. Leaves a rancid taste in my mouth, and I can’t find them terribly funny.
This reminds me of something kind of similar. A few years ago my niece (in her 20s) and a bunch of her friends saw “Jaws” for the first time. Their verdict: It was silly, dumb, and not scary at all. That was so different than my experience (and the vast majority of people) who saw it when it first came out, I was honestly shocked.
Some of the disconnect stems from people who are unable or unwilling to identify with events and counterparts from past generations, who lacked their technology and unique hipness.
There undoubtedly were people who came of age at the time of “Psycho” who found the original “All Quiet On The Western Front” (1930) to be campy and silly, never mind classic silent film dramas.
Don’t you think the flip side is also true, that older people here are unable or unwilling to identify with an opinion from a younger person because it does not align with their entrenched view of the movie?
It’s less than amazing that someone might be offended at ill-founded contempt directed at something many people (of all ages) really like.
To expand a bit on what I said, I suspect that those with poor tolerance in general for classic works of the past* overlap considerably with people who declare that history is bo-ring.
“Great Expectations”, though, is a painfully dull slog. 
Again the flip side: is it appropriate to be offended that a young person doesn’t like something just because old people enjoyed it in the previous century?
The idea that there is an orthodox view and any deviation from it is wrong is common here, but I would argue not terribly constructive.
It was only “old people” who went to see and enjoyed “Psycho” back in 1960? Really?
I’m not offended, just doing an eye-roll.
No, but those people are old now and some are getting triggered that a young person expressed a view contrary to their own.
There are things I like that I can see other people might see as campy or silly, I don’t conclude that my view is correct and they are wrong.
Nm. Wrong thread.
Neither. No work of art is ever like by every person who sees it. There were people who saw Psycho in 1960 who found it campy. There were people who saw Jaws in 1975 who were bored stiff by it. One person who was born after 1990 not liking a film (or not liking it for the same qualities you like it for) doesn’t tell you anything about that person’s generation. It just tells you what one person thought about a particular film.
It’s interesting. Reading the comments for the Youtube clip of that scene, I see that a lot of folks found it the scariest scene in the movie, and better than the shower scene, so I’m not sure I’d personally write it off as a “bad shot.” The camerawork on it has a very disorienting, surreal quality to it, especially with the low depth-of-field walking up the stairs, changing to the overhead shot and our killer buddy rounding the corner, to that disconcerting fumbling back down the stairs. I think, psychologically, it works. But I can see it as being “campy” as well seen through the lens of modern slashers where everything is knife-meets-flesh realistic.