DHP Review: Twilight
Posted by Dirty Harry on Friday, November 21st, 2008
Well let’s just say that I finally know what it means to be gobsmacked.
Twilight is the anti-everything awful and insidious produced these last fifteen years to further the left’s malicious goal of insinuating themselves in that spot they find most comfortable: right between you and your children. Not a single one of the cultural, sexual, or political pitfalls so common in movies (and public schools) are found here. Even the way in which the film’s directed, edited and scored is anti-MTV.
So caught unaware was I by this subversive throwback to the traditional that the tension caused by girding for a liberal sucker punch resulted in my politically correct twitch knocking me to the floor when a couple of American Indian characters were introduced. How could it not? After all, the film’s set in small town America and produced by an industry that loathes small towns … and America. At any moment the inbred — the overbearing preacher — the bigot with a pick-up truck loaded with empties and rifles has to show up to hassle “them filthy Injuns,” right?
No.
No?
No. And that’s the least of the film’s pleasant surprises.
Twilight is set in Fork, Washington, a big screen small town you and I will finally recognize. A small town filled with likable folk from every walk of life and background. Asian and Mexican and vampires and black and white and Indian all living together in a place where race isn’t an issue because unlike the gated communities of Hollywood, out there in the real world we got over that nonsense decades ago.
Did you miss where I said vampires?
Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) is seventeen and lives with her mother and stepfather in Phoenix, Arizona. He’s a minor league ballplayer about to hit the circuit so Bella heads up to Washington state to spend some time with her stoic, somewhat estranged father, Charlie (Billy Burke) who makes his living as the sheriff.
Starting school mid-semester in a cliched, lazy, stereotypical Hollywood movie can be difficult, but here the shy, somewhat moody Bella finds her new classmates eager to ease her transition, make friends, and show her around. Part of the tour introduces a pasty, quiet cliquish bunch — a few girls just this side of goth, a few guys skilled enough at brooding they should get paid by the hour. All of them live together as wards of the local doctor and call in sick those few days a year the sun comes out. Hmmm?
Bella’s immediately drawn to Chief Brooder, Edward (Robert Pattinson), and after a freak accident reveals his superhuman speed and strength to her, she becomes determined to uncover his secret. What unfolds from here is a tender romance with a touch of the forbidden and a squeeze of danger. Manna from heaven for any teenage girl capable of emitting a squeal.
Twilight has its flaws, and they’re not small ones, but they pale in comparison to the film’s many, many virtues. Working from Stephenie Meyer’s wildly popular debut novel, director Catherine Hardwicke is having none of the hyper-edited, over scored, slam-bam, pass the Dramamine, MTV style making gajillionaires of Ritalin investors. Hers is a deliberately paced story which unfolds on its own schedule with careful attention to character relationships and setting the environment of this foggy, rainy, green and beautiful wilderness.
And for all the vampires and superpowers and FX-ery, what we really have here is a good old-fashioned romance. So old-fashioned, in fact, that all the beauty and trembling expectation of a mere kiss bursts out of mothballs to make a roaring comeback.
Most welcome in the old-fashioned department is a cast of very likable characters. There’s no war between the divorced parents, and while the normal teenage awkwardness is apparent between father and daughter, so is the affection. It’s the same with Bella’s classmates. No bullies, no rich-bitch cheerleaders, just everyday American kids. Movies used to be made like this - with conflict arising from well-crafted situations as opposed to unsympathetic or deeply flawed characters. This is one of the many reasons older films are so much easier on the soul.
At 122-minutes, Twilight has its slow moments, especially in the first half which is the weakest part of a film that gets much better as it goes along. At first, the slow dance courtship between Edward and Bella lacks believability, credible dialogue and chemistry. It’s only after his secrets are revealed and they choose to be together that both they and the film finally relax. This is especially beneficial to Pattinson’s performance. Just when the James Dean-lite act grows tiresome, his character’s dry humor and warmth is released, especially in a charming and memorable scene where Bella meets Edward’s vampire family.
The central theme is that of the healthy and moral restraint of one’s passion. Refusing to kill humans, Edward’s family chooses to live off the blood of animals. Edward describes this as a kind of vegetarianism where one eats only tofu. Sure, you survive but it’s an unsatisfying existence. Part of his attraction to Bella is the smell of her blood, which he describes as a heroin. For this reason they can’t have sex. Passion of any kind might turn into a killing frenzy. And so the result is a relationship built on the lasting, not the sexual. In bed, they talk. On dates, they dance. He respects, protects her, and loves her even though he can’t have what he wants most from her.
The special effects aren’t great, what little action there is could be better, but the score’s mature (especially for a teenage film) and you can’t help but assume the sequel will be improved now that the characters are established and a bigger budget’s inevitable.
For all its weaknesses, Twilight redeems itself in the same way many a marginal golden age film did. Okay, the story could be better, but gosh darn it if you don’t like the characters, admire their better qualities, and want to see it all work out for them in the end.
Twilight is also a safe zone. Grab your kids and go the the movies. Keep in mind the PG-13 rating, but there’s not much horror and barely any violence. If they can handle that, what you have here is a movie that’s good for them. Just keep the Ritalin handly for when the de-programming kicks in.
Filed in Movie Reviews |
Emilyon 21 Nov 2008 at 7:34 pm 1Cool! I’ll probably actually go to a theater to see it. After the hordes of my screaming friends/fans clear out, lol.
Carolynon 21 Nov 2008 at 7:36 pm 2I have got to see this film. I’m unemployed and I do NOT ‘do’ theaters. But I have got to see this film.
Ohio Wolverine Momon 21 Nov 2008 at 7:53 pm 3I’ll go see it when the kids are in school; off track, but somewhat related—one of the actors is named Kellan Lutz, and in Krista Stewart (Bella)’s bio on IMDB, they mention her friendship with another actor named Kellan. Love this name–it’s my son’s. Anyone else ever heard of it? Wanted Connor (like John Connor), but this was the compromise name.
My teenaged niece loves the books, in part because of the issue DH mentions—controlling your passions. But some interesting comments on the Stephenie Meyer thread—will copy them to share with my niece on Thanksgiving.
Lloydon 21 Nov 2008 at 8:20 pm 4Do they ‘put on a show?’ Based on your review, that seems to be the ‘old Hollywood’ element missing from this.
USS Benon 21 Nov 2008 at 8:34 pm 5Instead of viewing Edward as a “stalker” type, I see him as chilvalrous, according to the review by DH.
What guy wouldn’t keep watch; protect his love 24/7 if he could?
That may seem creepy to some women, but if the guy truly loves and wants to protect his girl, it shouldn’t be.
I’m talkin’ about the guy’s intentions here. If they are pure, I don’t have a problem with it.
Real stalkers have evil and twisted intentions, which I do condemn.
I think most women want to be protected by a shining knight.
I’m not tryin’ to be sexist here, but this fact is true: the vast majority of women are physically weaker than men. And I think most women know that, although militant feminists (as opposed to true feminists) will tell you different.
They won’t admit there are lot’s of differences between women and men. Physically and mentally.
That’s not to say women can’t protect themselves. i wholeheatedly urge all women to buy a gun and learn to use it. Because that shining knight ain’t always around.
It’s the differences between women and men that compliment each other. That’s a big part of marriage:
the man and woman become “one.”
They provide what the other doesn’t have, completing each other.
Chivalry, for men, is very important, as is the urge to protect his girl, with his life if need be.
It’s good to see chivalry in this day and age.
Buck Turgidsonon 21 Nov 2008 at 8:37 pm 6My niece has read all (I don’t know how many there are - maybe the correct word is “both”) the books in this series and has been waiting for this movie for months. She’s 15, is into old-fashioned romance and is a rarity who thinks showing cleavage is tacky. If the book appealed to her, this description of the movie demonstrates why. I hope it starts a trend.
Ginaon 21 Nov 2008 at 8:44 pm 7Let me be perfectly clear on this: I love chivalry and I love protective men. I like it when a guy opens a door or stands up for me, and I thank him for it. Some of my favorite fictional heroes are chivalrous, protective men. I’m no strident feminist. (I think Todd Palin is a total sweetheart, if that convinces you!
)But I have said and will say again: Edward is not just protective, he’s a stalker, for reasons I’ve already explained in the other thread. I wish with all my heart it weren’t true, that this were just a lovely old-fashioned romantic story that I could get behind and support. But it is true. I can understand why people who are new to the story might miss some of it. I can see it more clearly because I’ve read all the books.
All of you who think Edward is merely protective, answer me one question: How would you feel about a young man who sneaked through your daughter’s window at night and watched her sleep without her knowledge, for months? That’s what Edward does, by his own admission.
And that’s just for starters.
trzupron 21 Nov 2008 at 8:58 pm 8“How would you feel about a young man who sneaked through your daughter’s window at night and watched her sleep without her knowledge, for months?”
With all due respect, and as the loving father of a loving daughter, I would take this as an example of another youg fellow’s devotion of, and appreciation of, a girl that I love. Is this film a somewhat creepy expression of same? Sure. Is it a father’s demonstration that his devotion goes beyond the ehetherial? Yeppers. I can live with that.
Cheers,
Rich
MovieBobon 21 Nov 2008 at 8:59 pm 9::looks at cast photo::
::looks at review::
::looks down at reems and reems of posts railing against “metrosexual” male actors in apparently every film released in the 21st Century not called “300″::
::looks at cast photo - again::
::looks at review - again::
Does. Not. Compute.
Or, maybe it does and I’ve now uncovered the “key” to getting a good review ’round these parts: Apparently one CAN make a movie with a group of outsider “elites” as the heroes (check out the Cullen’s pointedly out-of-place Peoples Republic of Oregon McMansion decor and Europhile affectations) represented by a male actor with lipstick, man-scara and feathered-hair and who’s chief ‘new’ contribution to the vampire mythos is having their skin sprout club-kid body glitter in sunlight… but it’ll be a-okay so long as nobody gets laid. I’d better write that one down
In all seriousness, this is probably the most “what the HELL did I just watch” movie for me since “Diary of a Mad Black Woman.” I get where the hormonal appeal is for teenaged girls… but the actual product? I’m almost hesitant to keep calling it Mormon Vampire Abstinence Porn because that makes it sound more interesting than it is. NOTHING happens for 90 minutes, then suddenly we get this STUPEFYINGLY awful baseball scene that you’d expect to see in a parody of this genre and the arrival of the most boring last-minute-bad-guy since “Hancock.” Thank heaven someone thought to have Ashley Greene hanging around in goth getup or I wouldn’t have had a single thing to watch.
USS Benon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:08 pm 10Hi Gina-
Okay, I believe you like chivalry.
Having not seen the movie, or read the books, I admit I could be wrong.
As I said, it all boils down to Edwards intentions, which “seem” noble, from what little I have read.
Anyway, I’ll stop writing about that which I know next to nothing about(Twilight) and wait ’til I see it.
I apologize, Gina. I didn’t mean to imply that you were a feminista.
I meant to say it’s easy to misconstrue someone’s intentions based on feminista conditioning for decades.
I would think the same if that happened to one of my daughters when they were teenagers. Actually even now. I’m very over-protective of them, which they increasingly hated when in high school.
Bein’ an ignoramus of the books, I’m happy to here you and Emily’s POV’s.
Ginaon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:11 pm 11“With all due respect, and as the loving father of a loving daughter, I would take this as an example of another youg fellow’s devotion of, and appreciation of, a girl that I love.”
Hmm. My father would take it as a perfect occasion to bring out his revolver. But I guess all fathers are different.
trzupron 21 Nov 2008 at 9:15 pm 12OK Gina, I’ll go shopping for a Colt 45 ACP.
Ginaon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:16 pm 13Hey, to each his own.
All I’m saying is, I don’t think spying on a girl inside her house without her knowledge is a healthy expression of love.
Mareon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:31 pm 14For those of you who haven’t read the books (I’m late to the game, however, I read three of the four books in three days) one of the important plot points is the fact that the main characters do not have sex. He is an old fashioned guy, in more ways than one (he wants to get married) and the books stress a connection, a yearning, a commitment and an innocence that does not present itself in Hollywood.
The books are not high literature but for preteens, teens and adults they do offer an old fashioned “forbidden” love that appeals to our most innocent selves.
The main character, a vampire has doubts about whether or not he has a soul and often questions his own goodness. He is willing to sacrifice himself for the one he loves. He is unwilling to make her a vampire because of the lifestyle and the possible loss of soul.
I have not read the last book so I cannot comment on that but in general I liked the characters, the innocence and the deep love shown by the majority of main characters.
Kendamaon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:42 pm 15@ MovieBob (#9)
You do have an excellent point, MovieBob. Dirty Harry and his regulars normally thrash “metrosexual” actors in their posts yet they don’t bat an eye here. And the chief qualification does, in fact, seem to be no sex. My perspective is limited, though — I didn’t see this movie, I don’t plan to, and I dislike vampire stories as a general rule.
@ Dirty Harry
What’s going on here? MovieBob kind of has a point! The way I see it, you’ve probably resigned yourself to such conditions, since they’re beyond your power to change. You just take what you can. Am I correct? This does come off as just a little hypocritical on your part.
USS Benon 21 Nov 2008 at 9:54 pm 16Mare said-
“The main character, a vampire has doubts about whether or not he has a soul and often questions his own goodness. He is willing to sacrifice himself for the one he loves.”
That, in and of itself, answers that question. He certainly does have a soul.
Steve M.on 21 Nov 2008 at 9:57 pm 17Very difficult for me to believe that Nikki Reed is in a movie that’s NOT pro-’teen slut’. I’ll need to hear some more reviews before taking a chance on this one.
Opuson 21 Nov 2008 at 10:00 pm 18The relationship of the two characters sounds strangely similar to the relationship between Buffy and Angel on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, with the exception that they did have sex once and it turned the vampire evil again…..lol…is there a moral there:) ?
Ulitmately he becomes good again and from that point on they have to do the whole chaste love thing.
Jenny C.on 21 Nov 2008 at 10:14 pm 19I’ve been waiting for a modern love story where it is not overly sexual.
I remember Greg Gutfeld was on Dennis Miller’s radio show a few months back and said how uncomfortable it was for him to see a movie with two actors trying to be believable in sex scenes. I was in total agreement. Movies of the past, “Casablanca” for example, does not venture into explicitness, yet you can tell where a kissing scene will lead to without going THERE.
FINALLY a teen movie not venturing into the lewd, crude, and socially unacceptable as so many have.
Usually, for me, the beauty in a love story is found in the small gestures between love interests, and restraint from overt passion. This story and movie seems to be respectful of that. As a woman of 25, that is my kind of movie.
Movie executives and books sellers think the more sex and raunchiness in teen flicks, the more money and sell. “Twilight” will overrule that notion. Hopefully.
When I want to see romance films, the movies of the 40s and 50s were for me. But I can see that finally there is someone making that kind of movie for me where I don’t have to cringe.
I am glad to see a movie reviewer that takes note of that.
whiskeyon 21 Nov 2008 at 10:17 pm 20See my review, I have a completely different take than DH. I also agree with Gina.
DH, the whole point is the sex. By making it forbidden, it’s more attractive. It’s all about the sex, and sex moreover that being forbidden it’s far more attractive.
It’s also a how-to manual to find the most aggressive bad-boy and have unrealistic ideas about men and boys.
whiskeyon 21 Nov 2008 at 10:23 pm 21Or for that matter, a focus on self-esteem through actual accomplishment rather than being a pretty girl desired by a brooding bad boy.
Jdespiritoon 21 Nov 2008 at 10:36 pm 22*blinks* *rubs eyes*
Well I’ll be damned. This movie just went from “don’t see under any circumstances” to “maybe check it out if its on cable television one day in the future.”
I know that sounds bad, but really I’m saying alot.
Keiraon 21 Nov 2008 at 10:40 pm 23In defense of the “metrosexual” look here, I gotta say, the characters were written specifically to appear ethereally attractive, occasionally sickly and eternally young.
Now, why they would choose that same look for Star Trek I have no idea. Anywhere else and it is “urp” inducing. But I think it sorta works in the story here. (Never mind that teen aged girls are attracted to the hairless Chihuahua type.)
Justineon 21 Nov 2008 at 11:12 pm 24Beyond the “stalker” qualities that are disturbing in themselves, I think it paints a very problematic portrait of relationships for young girls, who are the main audience for the books and film. It not only glamorizes Edward’s superficial features over all else, but allows Bella to be completely defined by the man she loves. She ceases to exist as an individual human being once she enters her relationship, allowing her emotions, thoughts and actions to be completely dominated by how Edward would react, or how he feels about her. Add in his very unhealthy devotion, which beyond just watching/following her everywhere, includes being extremely possesive and jealous, it’s not the type of relationship I would want my daughter or sister to hold up as any kind of ideal, and unfortunately for all too many girls, Edward is seen as the perfect man. It’s an extremely unhealthy ideal.
San Diego Bobon 21 Nov 2008 at 11:36 pm 25OW Mom #3,
There’s Kellen with an E, as in Kellen Winslow, famous tight end of the San Diego Chargers, and his son, Kellen, Jr, of the Bengals (?). So it’s a rare name, but not unheard of.
Jaredon 22 Nov 2008 at 12:01 am 26So… Difficult… to… comperehend… Harry liked a movie starring metros.
Teen movie starring vampires that amazingly didn’t have sex in it…
Better make sure a baked ham isn’t making a guest appearance ofer my house.
NoFearForTheSettingSunon 22 Nov 2008 at 12:16 am 27ATTENTION DIRTY HARRY!
It’s FORKS.
Not FORK.
Enbrethilielon 22 Nov 2008 at 2:18 am 28+JMJ+
The central theme is that of the healthy and moral restraint of one’s passion.
It’s also a theme of the book, though Meyer doesn’t get it across so effectively. So it’s good to hear that the filmmakers made up for whatever was lacking in the source material.
**********
As for the vampires looking like metrosexuals . . .
Remember that they’re supposed to be:
a) absolutely gorgeous, even “godlike”; and
b) not quite human, if you look at them closely.
I don’t know how someone from the 40s and 50s would have dealt with those specifications, but I don’t fault the modern filmmakers for thinking that the “metro” look was in order.
**********
Finally, on Edward as a stalker type . . . I think the rules are bent somewhat when someone is over a century old. =P
Seriously, it’s another point in which Twilight meets the conventions of genre Romance. Show me a Romance novel in which the hero isn’t allowed to get away with something that would, in real life, get an “ordinary” fellow thrown in jail, and I’ll dispute that it’s a Romance novel.
Rather Readon 22 Nov 2008 at 3:33 am 29The only way I am going to be able to read these is to buy them. They are checked out of the library and the waiting list is very, very long. I work in a university library and we have a large collection of children and young adult books. Meyer’s are constantly checked out and overdue.
I don’t think the characters look metrosexual, so much as they look not-quite-of-this-world. I think that was the look that the film was going for.
Stephanieon 22 Nov 2008 at 5:17 am 30The opinion of movie Bob means nada considering certain males think Hugh Hefner is chivalrous….he is not….
Anyway first off I don’t mind being protected. I know my hubby is always worried, and asks the same questions everyday about driving, who I am going to see and when I’ll be back. If I come home late from the Gym he is standing outside waiting. A pain at times but do I really mind? NO!
And Rich…buy the 45 now while you can….
Ohio Wolverine Momon 22 Nov 2008 at 5:28 am 31Thanks San Diego Bob—the name is different and I like to have examples of others who have it!
Would not have had this problem with Connor (sigh).
(Lacking in morning caffeine) I remember (and it’s been a few months) that Bella was obsessive about Edward too—I got the impression that if she could have watched him sleeping (which he doesn’t) she would have done that as well. When reading the book, I always thought of it as a way of showing how drawn to each other the characters were, and the signs that it was an enduring love—and since it has the potential of lasting several centuries, it better be!
Mrs. Happy Housewifeon 22 Nov 2008 at 9:13 am 32The fact that so many moms are completely crazy about this movie and the books induces my gag reflex. One older mom I know read so much sexual angst in the books that she asked her husband on a business trip to come home soon. Pu-leez! I like my heroes tall, dark, and handsome…and manly. This movie looks littered with Metrosexuals. I think I’ll watch “It Happened One Night” instead. No movie can top the sexual angst of the “Walls of Jericho”.
Ohio Wolverine Momon 22 Nov 2008 at 9:43 am 33I remember my co-workers, grandmas included, being spellbound by Harry Potter…but I don’t think I want to know the women Mrs. HH talks about…..that would turn me off, too.
While I agree about Gable & Colbert, I liked Twilight too; unfortunately for my husband, I did not have the same reaction as your acquaintance:).
DH, how about a thread on the steamiest scenes with clothes on? I loved Woodward & Newman in Long Hot Summer…
misterdon 22 Nov 2008 at 10:06 am 34What part of Mormon propaganda didn’t you understand?
mjkon 22 Nov 2008 at 10:18 am 35Hmmm, interesting. Maybe I will have to see this with all the teenyboppers…
Templaron 22 Nov 2008 at 10:21 am 36MovieBob:
Does. Not. Compute.
Why am I not surprised?
Or, maybe it does and I’ve now uncovered the “key” to getting a good review ’round these parts: Apparently one CAN make a movie with a group of outsider “elites” as the heroes (check out the Cullen’s pointedly out-of-place Peoples Republic of Oregon McMansion decor and Europhile affectations) represented by a male actor with lipstick, man-scara and feathered-hair and who’s chief ‘new’ contribution to the vampire mythos is having their skin sprout club-kid body glitter in sunlight… but it’ll be a-okay so long as nobody gets laid. I’d better write that one down
I’d recommend tattooing it on some conspicuous portion of your anatomy that you spend a lot of time focused on, just to be sure.
I’m almost hesitant to keep calling it Mormon Vampire Abstinence Porn because that makes it sound more interesting than it is.
The first sign of intellectual bankruptcy: Using the word “porn” to describe anything bearing even the slightest hint of stylization.
Sharon Fergusonon 22 Nov 2008 at 10:33 am 37I will tell you what a fellow homeschool mom said to me when she asked me if I had read the books (and I had to admit that I am one of the Uncool Moms that are still out there) : she finds the relationship that develops between Bella and Edward worrisome because she feels it sets up some unrealistic expectations for the girls in how they view boys. Granted, a girl SHOULD expect to be treated with chivalrous intent, and a girl SHOULD view a man who can restrain himself as the ideal, but most young men are NOT like that, and like my friend I could see how some of the more romantic moments in the film were actually quite naive. Yes, yes, I know we’re talking about vampires here, but the thing that turned me off the most was the whole “you can’t be with me because Im dangerous/I can’t stay away from you” aspect of the relationship. A true formula for teenage angst and taps into the desire for women to reform the Bad Boy, but I too would be a bit concerned that a father did not react with more concern over the fact (if he found out) that the young man was sneaking into HIS house to canoodle with his daughter…I dont care HOW altruistic his intentions. The first Man a girl ever gets to know is her Father…and if her Father doesnt exhibit the qualities she should find in a man, then finding a Bad Boy to latch her hopes on is gonna be the next thing.
Anyway, Im rambling and I know Im not expressing all my thoughts about Twilight clearly…I am still processing, especially since I saw the film at a midnight showing. As for the filming itself, I thought it was VERY well done, and for someone who had not read the books at all, thought the script and acting were well structured and done with much talent, enough for me to see things through Bella’s eyes and make the discoveries she made along with her. As a movie goer, I really appreciate that. Its one thing Im always trying to get Book fans (hello, LOTR and Master&Commander fans!!) to understand about movies: you have to be able to take the Newbies along with you. So I thought Twilight did a very very nice job. I look forward to purchasing as a DVD.
And just pray my daughter doesnt have to go through the agonies I went through with the Reluctant Bad Boy.
Jeremiahon 22 Nov 2008 at 10:41 am 38To me, it sounds like “The Lost Boys” but for girls/women more than guys. My wife likes the books, and enjoyed the movie, but she thought the movie had difficulty conveying the essence of the source material (she also acknowledges, however, that that task is nigh impossible in terms of paring down 500 pages into a two hour flick).
Regarding the whole “Metrosexual” thing - don’t most teenagers look like that? I suppose I’ll have to see the movie, but I don’t expect teens to look like Russell Crowe. I do, however, expect Superman to look older than 15…
Sharon Fergusonon 22 Nov 2008 at 10:50 am 39Wanted to add - nothing wrong with a man looking ‘beautiful’. Even Russell Crowe was quite beautiful in some of his roles (in Girl Speak, that means “HAWT.”) He was GLORIOUS as Jack Aubrey. Being otherworldly is going to look metrosexual, but if the ACTIONS of the character speak of definite masculinity, then what does it matter if his skin sparkles, or he has long hair? You can go back to the Greeks and Romans, and beauty in men was just as eagerly sought as it was in women. Our definitions of beauty change though. Twilight is geared towards teenagers. I am not a teenager any more. THANK GOD. But if I were, I would definitely find Edward attractive. As a Mother though, Im going to point toward characters like Jack Aubrey and Maximus.
moviebobon 22 Nov 2008 at 10:52 am 40Templar
“The first sign of intellectual bankruptcy: Using the word “porn” to describe anything bearing even the slightest hint of stylization.”
It’s not the stylization, since I’m refering to the material and not just the execution. This particular franchise is “porn”-esque in that it’s essentially fetishizing abstinence as some kind of sado-masochistic self-denial ritual for the pierce-my-tongue-to-feel-SOMETHING set.
As far as the subtexts at play go… If I had a daughter that was into these, my big worry would be that part of the “message” would seem to be that young men who act like manic-depressive jerks toward them are really just deep and fascinating and just need “the right girl” to snap them out of it.
I’m also, like others, more than a little skeeved out by how much of an aspect of the ideal of “The Surrendered Wife” there seems to be to Bella’s (oh, the name-gag there is sooooo effing clever, isn’t it?) concept of a relationship… but considering all the ‘good old fashioned’ Christian/Mormon underpinings at the heart of the franchise I kinda figured that the presence of such was a given
Sharon Fergusonon 22 Nov 2008 at 11:03 am 41movie-bob : what name-gag???? Im clueless to the reference of Surrendered Wife.
Im afraid I did go into the movie with a rather critical eye. It has not made me want to rush out and buy the books, but now I feel like I should so I can do my part as Mom who will have to counsel her daughter when she starts dating. Or at least be able to explain to her Dad so HE can talk with her. *sigh* Im glad there is a teen movie that puts forth the strong suggestion that sex is not necessary to a relationship, but I think the trade-off that are going on in Twilight are not much better. From listening to my daughters talk about the later novels, the Surrender is inevitable. Im going to have to read the books to find out if the Surrender takes place at an appropriate time (is there EVER an appropriate time to become a Vampire?)
Still, you know what, in reading DH’s review and everyone else’s comments, I think Meyer’s has much better ideals to offer than Alan Balls’ corruption of the Sookie Stackhouse books. Oi vey! He is SO messing up so much from those books!!
Templaron 22 Nov 2008 at 11:27 am 42MovieBob:
It’s not the stylization, since I’m refering to the material and not just the execution.
Fair enough, but I’d argue that it’s more a case of the material pandering to the general sexual fantasies of young females, than “sado-masochistic abstinence”.
As far as the subtexts at play go… If I had a daughter that was into these, my big worry would be that part of the “message” would seem to be that young men who act like manic-depressive jerks toward them are really just deep and fascinating and just need “the right girl” to snap them out of it.
Likewise.
I’m also, like others, more than a little skeeved out by how much of an aspect of the ideal of “The Surrendered Wife” there seems to be to Bella’s (oh, the name-gag there is sooooo effing clever, isn’t it?) concept of a relationship… but considering all the ‘good old fashioned’ Christian/Mormon underpinings at the heart of the franchise I kinda figured that the presence of such was a given
Oh?
Buttercupon 22 Nov 2008 at 11:32 am 43Lay off Harry on the whole metrosexual thing. The movie was made for teenage girls. Most teenage girls think Russell Crowe, Daniel Craig, Denzel Washington, etc. are old men like their dads. Sorry to bust some bubbles, but teen girls want non-threatening cute boys to crush on, not hairy, scary old men.
Sure, I’m sure that an exception can be found, but I remember my sister’s Teen Beat mags from the 70’s (featuring manly man Leif Ericson), the dreamboat poster of Rob Lowe (with eyeliner!) I had in the 80’s, my dear neice’s crazy obsession for all things Titantic (Leonardo, the roundest, babiest faced man-child hero ever) and every band that is popular with teen girls from way back when to now. Is there much difference between the Monkees then and the Jonas Brothers now?
And I’d be concerned if my 13 year old was crushing on a man old enough to be her dad. That would be scary.
Sharon Fergusonon 22 Nov 2008 at 11:39 am 44So I guess my crush on Harrison Ford was not quite right then??? *just teasing* Buttercup - I get your point.
For me the metrosexual thing has more to do with how the guy ACTS/BEHAVES, not how he looks. I dont think less of a man who keeps himself groomed and clean and nice smelling, no matter how hairy and Neanderthalenthic he looks. But if he acts like a wuss when it comes to being honest, acts like a snake when it comes to being faithful, acts like a dog when it comes to sex/restraint, and acts like a boor when it comes to treating others with consideration, THAT is a metrosexual. I think I dont need to go far in pointing in the direction of that person who says he won the presidency for the next four years, the one who changes his stance every hour, does not have his wife and children with him at important moments, refuses to stand up for his own beliefs and consorts with the most heinous people our country has allowed to exist…and yet there he is with his ugly mug plastered all over, nicely groomed, and as effeminate as hell. He is a GROSS metrosexual. Does he have the cajones to represent my country? I seriously doubt it.
Ginaon 22 Nov 2008 at 11:56 am 45I’ll be interested to hear how “protective” everyone thinks Edward is when “Eclipse” is filmed, and Edward decides that he doesn’t want Bella to go visit one of her friends, so he takes the engine out of her car.
Yep. Protective.
Mr Stay Pufton 22 Nov 2008 at 12:41 pm 46Thank goodness. My 14-year-old daughter is going to see this tonight with friends and the state of Hollywood makes me cringe. I’m glad I don’t have to.
Weekend link love — WHAT WOULD TOTO WATCH?on 22 Nov 2008 at 1:23 pm 47[…] Dirty Harry finds something to sink his teeth into about “Twilight.” I did find components of the film endearing — Bella has nothing but affection for her pappy, the school yard kids are sweet and decent, etc — but the rest of it … feh. […]
Lindaon 22 Nov 2008 at 5:49 pm 48I have a 13-year-old daughter, an avid reader. We discuss books a lot, and why certain books just aren’t good for the soul &/or worth one’s time. This series falls in that category - the heroine just isn’t heroic in any sense of the word, which would be fine if the protagonist wasn’t being packaged as a teen role model - Justine @ 11:12 nails it. Good review of the book series here, for those with teenage daughters:
http://www.pluggedinonline.com/read/read/a0004206.cfm
(I liked Whiskey’s review too)
Penelope27on 22 Nov 2008 at 6:58 pm 49I read these books, they are great. Mrs. Myers literature background certainly shows up in her writing. Hers is true blue, not the twisted version feminist would have us believe.
Mrs. Happy Housewifeon 22 Nov 2008 at 7:16 pm 50My husband and I went to the Bond movie tonight (very good, by the way) and saw a swarm of teen girls (and a few boys) waiting for “Twilight”. The sight was roll-your-eyes worthy. I have a teen and she has better sense than to act like that. I’m not saying that she doesn’t have movie character crushes, but she keeps her head about her. These girls tonight were Beatles or Elvis crazy. Some were even gasping for breath. I wanted to fetch some cold water or smelling salts and snap them out of it. I think any obsession is dangerous, especially among teens without a lick of sense. I guess I’m different than most females, but this behavior makes no sense to me.
Kiton 23 Nov 2008 at 7:11 am 51whiskey,
” By making it forbidden, it’s more attractive.”
That is part of the appeal of abstinence.
The rarity gives it value.
John Smithon 23 Nov 2008 at 8:37 am 52Thanks for the review DH. I’m surprised that the movie is “anti-MTV”; that REALLY peaked my interest since I despise MTV. I might just go and check out what all the fuss is about.
Big Hollywood » Blog Archive » ‘New Moon’ Trailer Arriveson 01 Jun 2009 at 4:26 pm 53[…] nothing about the source material, “Twilight” caught me completely by surprise – which is the only excuse I have for falling pretty hard for a longing, dew-eyed romance […]