I'm Not Mean, or, a Considered Twilight Review

Friends, I tread lightly. This is not going to be a no-holds barred review of the new Twilight film. Which, for the record, I wasn't crazy about. Instead, I am going to try to stick to some general comments about the interesting conditions that surround the film and would have made it hard to produce a film that was somehow more satisfactory to me. I will try not to give away any spoilers, and I will try REALLY hard not to do further damage to my friendship with J-Bro.

First, some context. I went to see Twilight Friday night with my 13-year-old cousin, who was so excited that she could hardly contain herself. We would have gone to one of the midnight shows on Thursday, but she had that whole pesky middle-school thing going on Friday morning, so we waited. We went to the last show of the evening, which took place in a 300 seat theatre that was only about a third full. Most of the audience consisted of women between the ages of 20 and 40. There were a few teenagers--but ones clearly old enough to have driven themselves. There were also a couple of boyfriends, and maybe a gay-best-friend or two as well. There was one awesome 30-something guy flying solo as well--clearly he has nothing better to do on Friday nights until The Hobbit finally comes out. I had to admire his moxy.

For the record, I have read the first three books of the series. Scratch that. I've read books 2 and 3. I listened to the first one on CD driving through Utah and Idaho this summer. (It seemed somehow fitting to listen to a story about Mormon vampires living in the PacNW while driving through Mormon country on the WAY to the PacNW!) I don't love these books. But I see the appeal and I don't, ultimately, find it surprising that they have really struck a nerve.

Now--the film itself. Although Stephenie Meyer says that she could see each of the books cinematically as she wrote, upon watching the film, it occurred to me that there are sort of insurmountable problems attached to the translation of this written text to film. This is interesting. And so I'm going to talk about this, instead of talking about the aspects of the film that I did not like that are going to get me into trouble with a friend I actually really respect and value.

1. The Jane Eyre Conundrum. Historically one of the problems of illustrating, staging, or filming Jane Eyre is Jane's own description of her physical self. If we are to believe her, Jane is, literally, a "plain Jane". Throughout the text she refers to herself as unexceptional looking, and compares her looks unfavorably to those of other women. There is a critical tradition that suggests that Jane is an unreliable narrator and that her description of herself might be based on a distorted image formed by childhood trauma. Whatever. The practical result of this is that it confronts artists/directors with a dilemma, given that Jane is the heroine (and lead character) of her own story: represent her visually as she describes herself (not very pretty), or make a conventional choice by casting (or otherwise representing) her as the most attractive woman in the production. One decision is clearly more in keeping with the spirit of Jane's narrative, the other is more likely to please audiences who like seeing love stories featuring attractive characters.

The director of Twilight faces the same choice. Bella also does not describe herself as a particularly attractive girl. And despite her popularity with the other guys at Forks High School (which can easily and plausibly be explained by the fact that she is an outsider in a place that doesn't often get transfusions--excuse the pun--of new blood in the student body population), readers do not necessarily have a reason to doubt her assessment of her own attractiveness. (Evidence for this--she was not nearly as popular in AZ as she is in WA--a fact made abundantly clear by her lack of experience with boys, love, etc.) While I do not think much of her acting, I do believe that Kristen Stewart is a much-better-than-average looking girl. This is a particularly a problem because of the next hurdle:

2. The Un-humanly Attractive Conundrum: In the fictional world that Meyer has created, one of the natural endowments of Mormon vampires is that they are unnaturally attractive. More attractive than a normal human. This is a difficulty on screen because Mormon vampires are, unfortunately, played by normal human actors. This was a concern in casting, apparently, because the casting of Edward Cullen took the consideration of 1000 actors. Unfortunately, Robert Pattinson is not un-humanly attractive (I don't care HOW attractive you might THINK he is--he doesn't look like a god). Nor are any of the other actors/actresses playing vampires in this film. Worse yet, they are not necessarily more attractive than Stewart herself. Especially troubling is the casting of Nikki Reed as Rosalie Hale. Reed is not stunningly beautiful, perhaps not even more beautiful than Stewart herself. This makes the awe of the student population of Forks HS and Bella's intimidation much less believable on screen than in the novels.

3. The Perils of First Person Narrative: Twilight, the book, is narrated in the first person by Bella herself. This is important for many reasons, not the least of which is that she controls the perspective and tone of the narrative. Bella is a detached, disaffected, emotionally flat character. As annoying as I have sometimes found this as I have read the novels, I realize after seeing the movie that her voice is essential to the consistency and success of the tone. The books seem very, very serious to me. There is a feeling of dread, danger, and melancholy that is pervasive throughout the series--which I think accounts for much of the romantic tension between Bella and Edward. It is one of the few things that makes Edward, or Bella's unhealthy obsession with him, remotely believable.

While screenwriter Melissa Rosenberg has given a nod to Bella's narration with some strategically placed voiceover, the camera (and director) necessarily becomes the narrator of this story when it is translated to film. Through the camera lens the perspective widens and the audience sees that Bella's world contains a far more wide-ranging emotional landscape than the novel suggests. The humor in the first half of the film (almost all of which emanates from Bella's peer group at school) is a result of the fact that the camera captures the reality of a high school experience that Bella herself cannot convey because she is either self-absorbed (in the first part of the novel), or preoccupied with Edward (in the second half). This myopic picture of Bella's world is actually more conducive to the suspension of disbelief because the dark and weighty tone allows the reader to enter a world in which eternal love and noble vampires might exist. The injection of "reality" provided by the perspective of the camera only serves to remind the viewer that Edward and his kind (not to mention the all-consuming, yet virginal, passion between Edward and Bella) cannot possibly exist in our world.

These were jarring problems for me, and made it impossible for me to fully enjoy or get lost in this film (something which, in the most ideal of circumstances, is not easy for me to do).

There is one element I'd like to praise the film for though. I did not even realize myself how specifically I had pictured the setting of the story. This probably should not be so surprising, given the fact that it is one of those rare narratives that takes place in my backyard. But I was pleased that so much of the background of the film looked exactly like I had imagined (with only one notable exception). They did get the feel of the NW--particularly the more rural NW--down beautifully. And there are a couple of stunningly beautiful (dark and rainy!) shots of Multnomah Falls.

Ultimately none of my thoughts about the film matter much, since, as J-Bro has commented, I wasn't the audience for this film in the first place. The people it was produced for--my teenage cousin and Jamie, who is a self-professed fangirl--loved it. Fair enough. Truly satisfying things in this world are few and far between--I'm glad that they loved it.

See. Not mean.

Thanks for the comments, guys.

I actually feel like the two comments on my last post deserve a post of their own. So, here are my thoughts.

Felisa: I can't remember ever really disagreeing with you, about anything, ever. But I have to disagree about the Pitt. Going the way of Redford does, indeed, mean aging badly. My theory on this is very simple, if you are a too-pretty man (and this seems to particularly afflict blondes for some reason) you may be a beautiful young man, but you are not likely to age well. I have never been a big Brad Pitt fan and I have said for years that I thought that his looks would not hold up over time. Here is where I must really disagree with you--although I have not seen the film yet (Burn Before Reading), I have seen the previews both on TV and on the big screen. And I don't think that the guy's skin looks good. He looks sort of haggard and he's starting to look weathered. And not in a good Steve-McQueen-Paul-Newman (rest his soul)-Clint-Eastwood kind of way. But in a sad, I-remember-how-good-looking-he-was-in-The-Natural Robert Redford kind of way. Except I never really thought all that highly of the Pitt.

OMD: Yes, I have heard the same rumor about Dr. Pepper promising every American (with the exception of Slash and Buckethead. Which is pretty funny.) a free can of soda if Chinese Democracy actually would come out in 2008. I didn't repeat the story because:

1. I don't know if it is true, or some kind of weird urban legend. And I don't like being responsible for the propagation of an urban legend.

2. I can't imagine how Dr. Pepper would go about distributing a free can of Dr. Pepper to every American.

3. I only care about the story if they will give me my choice of a diet Dr. Pepper. But I kind of doubt it, since diet soda pop is not very rock n roll.

I do think that the whole thing is pretty funny--even if (or especially if) it is all a big hoax. If it isn't, I do think that we should hold Dr. Pepper responsible for the offer.

Now that I think about it, I wouldn't put it past Axl Rose to have finally allowed the album out of the box just to call Dr. Pepper's bluff.

Ok, but really, Dr. Pepper?!!? It's just so freaking random.

Bottom of the Barrel

Sadly, my current status as unemployed, housebound loser presents me with a paradox. On the one hand, I have almost unlimited time to blog. On the other, I am having virtually no experiences, and therefore have nothing to blog about. I mean, do any of you really want to hear about the five episodes of Intervention (a show that I find totally reprehensible, yet can't get enough of) I watched on Monday? Or about my short shopping trip to New Seasons with Miss E last night that led to the purchase of many potatoes and two loaves of bread? I thought not. It is, all things considered, a sad state of affairs.

Yet some of you (no names) believe that I should be writing anyway--

So I'll say a little something about J-bro's recent challenge to me to watch A & E's inexplicable The Two Coreys. If you don't know about this show, a short introduction: it is a half hour "reality" (I mean the quotation marks here) show in which Corey Feldman (of Lost Boys, License to Drive and Dream a Little Dream fame) and Corey Haim (of Lost Boys, License to Drive and Dream a Little Dream fame) perform their on-again-off-again-but-mostly-off-again best friend routine while Feldman's wife fans the flames and poses nude for Playboy. There is also something about the Corey's making Lost Boys III--a terrible idea--and couple's therapy (for Corey and Corey).

I have watched this show. More specifically, I have watched about 5 episodes of the current season. I have seen no episodes from the first season. I have only done this at the request of J-bro, whose taste I usually respect.

It's not even that this show is terrible (and it is). The larger problem is that I just don't understand it. Not at all. There is so much more unknown than known, that every time I watch it I end up more confused than I was before. I'm pretty sure that isn't how it is supposed to work. I'm just going to provide a list of some of the vexing questions raised by this show:

1. The format: Why is the show only a half hour long when A & E just runs 2 episodes back-to-back every week to make what is, essentially, an hour long show?

2. The believability factor: How does A & E expect audiences to continue to ride the roller coaster when one Corey or the other is constantly saying, "This is it. The end of my friendship with Corey. We're done. I'm done." (Both Coreys say this 2-3 times an episode--each.)

3. The therapist: Part One) Where did they find a therapist who would agree to conduct therapy sessions (individual, couple, family) on camera. Part Two) Why does this woman appear to still have a license to practice?

4. The drugs: Apparently Haim is on drugs. That makes sense given his behavior (unless he is actually acting. I don't put it past him.), and his puffy appearance and the fact that Feldman thought that he needed an intervention. But what drugs? And where is he getting them? And why is there no drug taking on film?

5. The mysterious brown liquid with ice cubes: Haim is constantly (and I do mean CONSTANTLY) drinking some mysterious brown liquid out of large plastic cups. It happens so often that it is distracting. To make matters worse, his assistant Nelle now also drinks the mysterious brown liquid. Out of slightly smaller cups.

6. The missing child: Um. Feldman and wife Susie have a kid (his name is--I looked this up on IMDB--Zen) but he is never seen on camera. Nor is there any indication that there is a child on the set. Nor do I think I have ever heard either Feldman or Susie mention their offspring. Apparently this child is 4. The only reason I even know anything about him is that J-bro mentioned him. That's messed up.

7. Art: Who told Haim that he could paint? Because he can't. What he does seem to do is buy a lot of painting equipment which he throws around a lot when he is upset. And sometimes paint does land on some canvases, but I'm pretty sure that it isn't painting. And then there is usually some cigarette smoking after the throwing around of the paint paraphernalia. Haim does the smoking, not KRD.

8. Hair: Am I supposed to want to see Susie Feldman straight-ironing her hair at least once an episode? If so, why?

These questions just begin to scratch the surface. This show is confusing. Worst of all, I have no idea why I'm supposed to care about these guys. I didn't like them when we were kids--Lucas notwithstanding, and let's be honest, I only like that flick because of Charlie-on-top-of-the-dryer-with-no-shirt-on-Sheen.

I'm sure that J-bro will be able to clear some of this up for us. I look forward to that. In the meantime I wish to add:

Listen, I bet that most of us secretly cared more about Cory Matthews than whiny Kevin Arnold. At least Cory had the stones to really have a relationship with Topanga. And we all know that Topanga was waaaay cuter than Winnie. She even had better hair (and that's no small feat). The only reason I ever really watched that show was in hopes that Karen (the fantabulous Olivia d'Abo) would show and have a meaty part.