Making Sense of Twilight Nonsense

My dear friend Jeanne already posted an excellent, thought-provoking blog about Twilight, the book and movie series that has dominated my time as of late. I have never had my opinion of something shift so dramatically in such a short amount of time. I went from literally being in love with Edward Cullen on Tuesday night to being completely disgusted with the entire series on this past Wednesday morning.

Reluctantly, I went with my friend Leslie and my sister to go see the movie Twilight over Thanksgiving break. I literally knew nothing about the series, only that it was some teen fantasy movie about a high school girl falling in love with a vampire. I had heard nothing but rave reviews about the series, even from women my own age whom I respect intellectually and spiritually. Still, I was skeptical because it seemed to be so trendy. Not to mention cheesy. I watched the movie with my arms crossed, fully expecting to hate it.

I was surprised at how much I got caught up in the story, and despite a cheesy line here or there, I found myself actually liking the protagonist Bella--she seemed to take cheesy dialogue and at least breathe some life into them--and I fell head over heels in love with Edward Cullen, the vampire. I walked out of that movie, strangely surprised at how much I enjoyed the film.

Leslie bought the first book of the series and began reading, although I initially had no interest in reading it. A few of us got free AMC movie tickets, so we decided to use them on a second Twilight showing, since Jeanne hadn't seen it. I discovered that I liked the movie even more the second time and actually wanted to read the books now. So I began to read Book 1.

I have to say the book itself is far more seductive than the movie. In the film, I admired Edward because he became so protective of Bella. The book explores their connection a lot more and you begin to realize that Edward's sole concern is protecting Bella and being with her and finding out what's on her mind. There's something so incredibly alluring in that kind of single-minded devotion and this (plus the fact that he's perfect physically, wealthy and drives fast cars) that millions of teen girls, 20somethings and middle-aged moms are totally obsessed with the series.

The second book is honestly what dramatically changed my opinion of the series. I didn't find it to be that interesting or compelling, at least from a written and technical standpoint. The last 200 pages are exciting plot-wise, but the reappearance of Edward which I had been anticipating the entire book almost seemed anticlimactic. Mostly because I began to realize how unhealthy the relationship between Bella and Edward really is.

And this is the danger, I think, in these books. They portray Bella and Edward's relationship as ideal, and it FEELS ideal if you allow yourself to be emotionally caught up in it. However, the obsessive, all-consuming, jealous relationship, not to mention poor communication (Bella and Edward could've seriously avoided this whole drama of Book One if they had just communicated clearly:P) IS unhealthy, despite its initial appeal.

One article phrased the series' appeal quite well:

"She [Bella] is purposely made as featureless and ordinary as possible in order to render her a vacant, flexible skin into which the reader can insert herself and thereby vicariously enjoy Edward's chilly charms."

Jeanne recently joked that she knew the best way to make a million dollars: Create a bland, female protagonist and then create an impossibly perfect man so that all women can live vicariously through aforementioned female protag. That's basically what these romance novels are.

I probably could do that, although I feel as though I would lose my soul in the process.

My friends Dan and Serenity have created a wonderful, humorous little website called Stuff That's Better Than Twilight. It has a few more article links posted on there for more insight as to why this series--while entertaining and good for a little romantic escapism--can also be incredibly damaging and give distorted views on what real love is like.

I think this series--and other romantic books and chick flicks that are similar--are truly emotional porn. They do for women exactly what pornography does for men: setting up unrealistic expectations and ideas about love.

I love how Jeanne stated it in her blog:

It really IS porn for women. It sells the lie that this is what love really is, when it's in no way representative of LOVE. The gaudy replica of the truth. It always sells SO well, and we sometimes forget the why: It plays so well on our heartstrings that can be tuned only to Christ.

To readers of the series, particularly women (because I honestly can't imagine a guy willingly reading these books anyway): Please, PLEASE. If you read these books, read them with discernment and full awareness that the deep longing in your soul can only be fulfilled by God and Him alone.

And so ends my roller-coaster emotional Twilight saga.

And yes, I'm going back to Karamazov:D

My Summer of Movies

I just went back and tried to think of every single movie I've seen in the theater since May. It's certainly been a crazy summer for movies.

Expelled
Prince Caspian (2x)
Indiana Jones 4 (2x)
Iron Man
Sex and the City
Kung Fu Panda
The Happening
Wanted
Get Smart
Hancock
The Dark Knight (1 in IMAX, 1 in regular)
The X-Files Movie
Pineapple Express
The Incredible Hulk

This seriously has to be my own personal record for movies seen in one summer.

And I haven't even seen Wall-E yet!

movies

I like movies that get under my skin.  That make me think.  The ones that make me actually forget I'm watching some cinematic creation and I swallow the story--world, characters and all--like one gigantic pill.

Gone, Baby, Gone was brilliant because it achieved something quite astounding for someone (Ben Affleck) on their directorial debut:  it successfully wove and spun this gritty crime thriller into something quite more complex and strangely compelling, landing the audience on a morally ambiguous playing field of ethical dilemma.  And just from a suspenseful plot standpoint, the thing twisted and turned more than a taffy-making machine.  And Ben (yep, we're on a first-name basis here) fantastically captured the non-gentrified streets and neighborhood of Boston.  It felt like a beautiful but realistic homage to his hometown.  

The thrust of the movie was almost documentary-like, because it's jarring and unsettling in its conclusion.  It's most definitely NOT an mass opiate of entertainment. It's a wake-up call and a sobering look into reality.

This sharply contrasts with Hancock a fun summer popcorn flick (although I was not eating popcorn when I was watching it) that I watched last night.  To me, Hancock is the new Cloverfield.  It definitely lives up to the hype in entertainment value (plus Will Smith is just plain fun to watch) and was perfect for a Friday night, but the thing is not going to change the course of history or sink deeply in the collective psyche, just line the pockets of fancy Hollywood execs.  Ah well.  It was still a good time.  And certain parts of the music score sounded surprisingly kind of cool and indie-flickish, which I was not expecting.

On that note, if you're looking for some good summer music, my fellow blogger Jonathan has posted a spectacular playlist entitled "Summer of Rock '08" that you should check out here. You can download the entire playlist and he gives specific instructions on the blog on how to do so.

The Lipps brothers generally rock at introducing me to new music.  Because of them, I have Coldplay (yep, I KNOW), Teitur, and Pedro the Lion in my life, to name a few.  

In a parallel universe, I am sure that would translate into a life debt of some sort.

;)

love the day,

M

My Indy 4 review

I went to the midnight showing of Indiana Jones: Kingdom of the Crystal Skull last night, cautiously aware that any unrealistic expectations I may have harbored would automatically detract from my enjoyment of the movie. So as much as I love Indy with a nostalgia rivaled perhaps only by my love for old school Star Wars, I took care to make sure that my hopes were not too fiercely pinned on this fourth installment.

As a result, I was pleasantly surprised. Overall, the film was not as good as it might have been, but it was a lot better than it could have been also. I absolutely loved the old school analog feel of the film, and Spielberg used good old fashioned stunt work and imaginative camera angles and kept the CGI toned down, as should be. He really recaptured the look and film of the original trilogy series but threw in enough updated flair to keep things interesting.

I have always admired Harrison Ford the actor’s incredible ability to take punches and make them look like they really hurt, but then bounce back with some smart-aleck comment and rugged confidence (note, this is one of the reasons I love Nathan Fillion in Firefly). I am not a huge fan of Shia LeBeouf—his overly earnest, hyperactive performance in Transformers surely didn’t sway my opinion in his favor—but I find myself genuinely enjoying the easy rapport between him and Indy. All of the nods to previous films (watch for the Ark of the Covenant and the snake) didn’t seem contrived; rather they seemed to merely celebrate the spirit of the old films without beating our heads over the top with it.

The film had plenty of classic Indy creepy crawly moments and great, satisfying action sequences. I am constantly amazed at Spielberg’s ability to make done-and-done movie clichés (like the all-important car chase) seem fresh and original and imaginative.

Also, while the movie occasionally toed the line of cheesy, the screenwriter was smart enough to throw in enough clever writing to pull off potentially disastrous lines. For instance, when Marion asks Indy why he never stayed with any other woman long enough, Indy responds "Because they weren't you, honey." To me, the "honey" in this line, is what the "kid" is in Casablanca's "Here's looking at you, kid." That extra term of endearment somehow saved the line from cheesiness. The difference is this however: n Casablanca, the word "kid" ("which, helloooo, totally makes the line") made that quote become iconic and classic; however, in Crystal Skull, the "honey" merely redeemed the line from being entirely saccharine.

But little touches like that throughout the film sidestepped potential problems and kept me happy. Thank you, Spielberg.

Warning: SPOILER ALERT ahead. Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

I wasn’t even too jarred by the whole alien twist at the end, mostly because I had pretty much expected it after the first scene. Also, the inclusion of the mysterious Nazca Lines in Peru in the opening moments of the film already signaled to me that Indy’s leap (pun intended) into the paranormal this time was going to be of extraterrestrial origin.

My enjoyment of Stargate: SG-1 over the years probably primed me to accept the weirdness of the alien plotline way before it was revealed in the final moments of the Indy film. The whole premise of Stargate is that the advanced technology of ancient civilizations to achieve marvelous architectural wonders—as evidenced by the Great Pyramid of Giza, the Nazca Lines, the statues on Easter Island, Stonehenge, etc.—was actually brought by extraterrestrials that visited Earth and eventually left these things behind. In the Stargate film, for example, one extraterrestrial posed as Ra, the Egyptian sun god. Armed with superior technology, he successfully posed as a god to the masses and this supposedly accounts for the detailed hieroglyphs that archaeologists have found which depict the Egyptian pantheon of gods. As the storyline goes, the people didn't just make their gods up--they were actually visited by aliens but mistook them for gods and recorded these experiences on stone and in papyrus.

This so-called theory is perhaps best exemplified in the book Chariots of the Gods (which I have never read) which apparently served as the inspiration for series like Battlestar Galactica (which I could never get into) and Stargate (woot woot). Suffice it to say, this theory has served as a staple for many science fiction stories today.

So the fact that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull threw this in as a final plot twist didn’t seem too outlandish to me (outlandish as it pertains to the realm of science fiction, not outlandish as it pertains to the real world. I’m not saying I believe in aliens, just in case you didn’t catch that;). Just saying as far as sci-fi goes, this was nothing new. Spaceship leaving earth after being disturbed by curious individuals? Check (X-Files movie). The idea of a collective consciousness complete with genetic memory being downloaded into one person’s brain that can't handle it? Check (Jack O’Neill or Daniel Jackson in Stargate).

In short, the Indiana Jones franchise has always dabbled in the paranormal. So rather than searching for the fantastical untapped power of the ark of the covenant or the Holy Grail, you have, well… aliens.

Kinda weird. But hey, that’s science fiction for ya.

The film is not without its flaws, and I can see some people maybe not liking it, but here's my advice: just sit back and enjoy. It is what it is. Overall, I was reminded why we love Spielberg. The man knows how to make an enjoyable flick that doesn’t take itself too seriously.

Now if only George Lucas would have let him help with the newer Star Wars films…