Ebert of the Day
The last part of the Roger Ebert review of “The Twilight Saga: New Moon”
…sitting through this experience is like driving a tractor in low gear though a sullen sea of Brylcreem
He didn’t like the movie very much, which suggests to me that he has seen it.
I don’t recall the source, but my favorite review of the first movie was something along the lines of “Dawson’s Creek, but with vampires.” This one sounds less tolerable than the first. The same mistake so many have made, confusing intensity with staring longingly at one another.
Comment by Jack — 11/23/2009 @ 10:30 pm
The reviews are the one good thing about the Twilight franchise, the books and movies seem to bring out the creative insulting skills of the critics.
I read most of the first book and found myself stuck somewhere between laughing really hard and (sparkling) feminist rage. It’s just such a fun book to hate.
Comment by Liz — 11/24/2009 @ 10:49 am
I saw the first movie because my girlfriend was convinced it would be cute, and it was horrible. Just dreadful. And from what I know from the movie, and about the books, “feminist rage” is a good phrase to describe my own reaction to it. What an ugly message.
Comment by Brad — 11/24/2009 @ 2:56 pm
Did SHE like it?
Did she like it when the guys fought?
I have a friend who holds up this movie as evidence of biology’s inexorable influence upon human beings…that there is something about this kind of story that women react to on an almost genetic level. Particularly, you know, the guys fightin’. Rowr!
My friend is, of course, male. Liz presumably isn’t. She seems to disagree. But probably only as a visceral reaction against the stimulation of her nest-making gland…
Comment by Rojas — 11/24/2009 @ 3:17 pm
The most amazing thing about the Ebert review, btw, is the fact that he actually gave a movie less than 3 1/2 stars.
Post-surgery Ebert is clearly glad to be alive, and that feeling suffuses his writing, to generally positive effect. But it also seems to have played havoc with his ability to critically assess movies.
Comment by Rojas — 11/24/2009 @ 3:37 pm
No, she didn’t like it, and wound up feeling mildly guilty about dragging me along.
She did read all the books though, mostly to keep up with her friends who had read all the books and loved them. And she liked some parts of it—I think the vampire backstories, if I recall—but didn’t like the protagonist.
I think it’s probably true that there’s something to the subordination and obsession = self-actualization themes striking a cord—Liz and I have had conversations that glance on this before regarding feminism. But mostly, having had two younger sisters, I keep thinking about what an awful message the books send.
Comment by Brad — 11/24/2009 @ 3:41 pm
OK, someone clue me in as to what is the message of the movie that irks you so? I’m not disagreeing, I just have not seen it. The reviews I read focused on the ginormous plot holes and ludicrous teen-longing-intensity of it. What caused the feminist rage?
Comment by Jack — 11/24/2009 @ 4:47 pm
Well, the implicit and at times explicit message to the target audience, teen and preteen girls, is that obsession is the purest form of love and a really hot guy is worth subjugating all personal goals and even life itself for. It’s just amazingly shallow, and revels in that fact. Bella meets hot guy: Bella then immediately (as in within seconds) decides that she has to be with this guy, up to an including giving up her friends and family and even dying for him (a thought that comes up immediately and often; “Must have him or I WILL DIE!”). Rest of the series plays out as various male forces vie for the right to either eat or impregnate her, while Bella mostly looks on helplessly, alternating between fear and pining.
I have to say I’m rarely struck with feminist thoughts, but the more I was exposed to the books the more unsettling it seemed to me. It’s sort of like the mindset of Romeo and Juliet, but I mean that negatively. It takes every bad impulse that exists for teenage girls discovering love/sex, amplifies them enormously, and gives it all an extra patina of romanticism.
You know how most books for girls in that age group or younger tends to have plucky protagonists bucking stereotypes and discovering and then executing their own agency? Yeah, this is the polar opposite sort of book.
A decent discussion here.
Comment by Brad — 11/24/2009 @ 5:08 pm
There are many, many things wrong with the books – admittedly, only read one, but the reviews of them are funny enough to make me read them.
Brad’s said a lot of it – there’s also really odd chastity theme, with Bella repeatedly throwing herself at the vampire and the virgin vampire valiently rejecting her despite the fact that her blood smells like freesia. There’s the stalker thing, where he controls her every movement and stands in her bedroom to watch her sleep which is supposed to be romantic. There’s the recurring death thing – like her thinking she’ll die without him, her wanting to die (become a vampire) before she’s too old for him (over the age of 17), and then jumping off a cliff so that he’ll come rescue her, because that’s the only way to get him to come back. Motherhood is fetishized to the point that the women who can’t have children (and all of them want children)are either depressed or bitter. And yeah – basically anything and everything for this guy who is a controlling sparkly vampire. no school, no friends, no family, not even life -nothing but him.
I think that the end of the series says it all actually – and avert your eyes here if you want to read the series or have a weak stomach:
Bella marries Edward at 18 because a – he won’t sleep with her until she marries him, b – because he won’t turn her into a vampire until she marries him and c – she has no intention of going to college. So she marries him, gets knocked up, the baby is half vampire and strong and literally snaps Bella’s spine in two so Edward has to turn her into a vampire to save her life, then Edward uses his fangs to perform a cesarean. Oh, and then the other dude fighting for Bella (the werewolf) falls in love with the infant daughter and will now wait for her to come of age until they can mate. (they call it imprinting) (also the baby’s named Remesmee or something like that.) Seriously.
But that could be my nesting gland talking.:)
Comment by Liz — 11/24/2009 @ 7:13 pm
OH that is totally fucked up. I had read a bit about the implied Mormonism and LDS concepts in the series, but seriously, imprinting an infant? Jesus, so much for free will on the female side.
OK, now for confession: My wife loved it. She acknowledges all your points, and just doesn’t care. You know how I called this Dawson’s Creek with vampires? My wife LOVED Dawson’s Creek. Her one critique? Dude wore way too much make up.
Comment by Jack — 11/24/2009 @ 7:42 pm
This imprinting thing is really bugging me. It’s like the worst elements of the FLDS, saving the youngest girls for the powerful church members. Women as chattel. Wow. You know all those moron that don’t let there kids read Harry Potter for reasons associated with their morality? Wrong series.
Comment by Jack — 11/24/2009 @ 7:45 pm
I still contend that the real immorality of the Harry Potter series consists in the way House Slytherin is consistently treated by the authorities at Hogwarts.
Comment by Rojas — 11/24/2009 @ 7:49 pm
My fiance read all the books diligently, because a lot of her friends kept talking about them (and she reads everything, constantly), and was left a little unsettled too. She didn’t hate hate them, but even she couldn’t quite stomach them. And she is the most Dawsons-Creek-lovingest woman you ever met. She’s also not someone I would describe as a feminist, but even her takeaway was “Wow. That’s just a little fucked up.” And like I said, she actually apologized for dragging me to the first movie, and considering how often she drags me to chick flicks with no apology whatsoever, that’s saying something.
Comment by Brad — 11/24/2009 @ 7:53 pm
Jack – yeah the imprinting is the worst. This baby girl already has her entire life planned out for her and it all revolves around a man. It isn’t like her mother set a good example in this regard either.
And exactly about the comparison between Twilight and Harry Potter (Slytherin aside – I do agree with you there Rojas). But Twilight was marketed as a book written by a Mormon woman promoting romantic chastity in teens whereas Harry Potter had the evil witchcraft.
I know plenty of smart women who’ve read and ejoyed the books – it’s like cotton candy in many respects, and too ridiculous to take seriously. I read plenty of admittedly stupid things, and I like Glee, so really, no stone casting here. It just makes me very uncomfortable that so many girls are nuts over it. Whether that’s crazy or not, I don’t know.
Comment by Liz — 11/24/2009 @ 11:33 pm
Oh that’s your objection? I was just upset that so many girls are reading.
Comment by Brad — 11/24/2009 @ 11:53 pm
15: Well played. I think mock sexism/racism/extremism for the purpose of ridiculing same is one of the more socially dangerous forms of humor (as in easily misunderstood), and I think my favorite forms.
Comment by Jack — 11/25/2009 @ 10:31 pm
Remind me not to show you “The Burning Crossword”.
Comment by Rojas — 11/25/2009 @ 10:57 pm