Monday, August 16, 2010

The "Twilight" saga... a combination liturature/movie critique in progress

Just let me begin by saying, I was probably the biggest critic of this...series, epic, whatever you want to call it. I thought it was absolutely ridiculous that anyone could get that insanely stoked over vampires and ware wolves. But, on a long drive I was coaxed into listening to the first book in the series, and on the drive back I was desperate to start the second.

My skepticism about this series stemmed from not only the fact that it was primarily marketed as a "teen read", but also because the only decent Vampire movie ever made, and I still stand by this as far as quality film making goes, is "Interview With A Vampire". Every other vampire movie before and since either lacked the quality to make it enjoyable and watchable, or was just downright bad. And, in getting into this series, I really needed to put my suspension of disbelief into practice, but once I did, it really was easy to get sucked in.


Twilight- my brief Story critique of the beginning of the saga
The first book started slowly, but sucked me in to the story before I knew what happened. Not because the writing was particularly outstanding, but because the characters were absolutely intriguing to me, and this book, being the first in the series, needed to be more of a character introduction to set up for the following books. I think Bella is an idiot, in that she is 17, and all 17 year olds are somewhat stupid, wreckless, and flighty. So bravo to Stephanie Meyer there for effectively bringing me back to that mental state. Bella, a teenage girl who moves to a small town in Washington state to live with her father, falls for the most intriguing, mysterious, and dangerous guy at school Edward Cullen. Edward turns out to be a vampire who wants nothing more than to eat her ("suck her blood"). He wants her so badly, in fact, he has to leave and go "hunt" in order not to publicly expose himself to the rest of society for what he truly is by jumping on her and biting her in the middle of class. When he finally returns, he needs to get her in small doses to be able to trust himself around her, and struggles with whether or not they should even associate. By the second act of the movie, he realizes he can no longer leave her alone. He becomes so infatuated with her, that he takes it upon himself to be her personal guardian,and eventually falls in love with her.
Edward is in my mind one of the and most dynamic and complex literary villains. Over one-hundred years old, eternally in a 17 year-old's body, he is so captivated by Bella's scent that he can hardly control himself. He's never wanted to partake of a human being so badly as he wants her... she is described as his own personal brand of heroine. he belongs to a "family" of vampires who have made a truce with the natives in the area (who are the only ones who know what they truly are, and have an age old rivalry with them because the ancestors of these particular indians are ware wolves) that they would only hunt animals, not humans, which is put in jeopardy the further he carries on his relationship with Bella. his lust for her blood quickly turns into infatuation- "the lion falls in love with the lamb", (a Biblical reference which I will go into a little bit later), describes their relationship. He is soon able to put aside his innermost desires and natural instincts to attack her because his only goal as far as she is concerned is to love her and keep her safe.
While some might view this aspect of Edward's character as being "too perfect" or "unrealistic", it is the perfect depiction of real love, even Biblical love. The love depicted is that of one denying an innermost desire for the sake and good of another, which is absolute, perfect love. Time and time again throughout the series Edward tries, sometimes in vain, to selflessly think of Bella's safety and happiness over his own comfort and desires. He even denies her begging to make her a vampire as well (for as long as possible, anyway) in order to save her soul, so that she does not face the same fate he does of eternal damnation. This is the ultimate self sacrifice as far as his character is concerned, which is why i find him to be such an intriguing villain.
The graphic for this novel, which is also seen in the movie, is two hands grasping an apple, a reference to Genesis when Eve is tempted by the forbidden fruit... a direct parallel to both Bella and Edward's plight in the story. So their relationship in essence is one of mutual obsession, and equal risk to both parties; Bella risks being eaten, and Edward risks exposing him and his family and losing everything.
In addition to Edward, the entire Cullen "family" are some of my favorite characters. They are not the same as the other vampires who give into their lust for blood, what Carlisle, the leader of the family, believes to be what damns them to hell. Though they all have bitten and killed humans because after all, they are vampires, they try their best to go against that nature and only hunt animals. The reason I think this family is so endearing is because they portray human's innate need for redemption. Just as this clan strives to live their 'lives' as the undead in a way that will somehow redeem them from their fate to live forever as soulless killers, we as sinners strive to be redeemed from the fall in the garden of Eden.
Now, this is not that far of a reach considering the author, Stephanie Meyer belongs to the Mormon Church, and the inception of this series came to her in a dream (similar to how her religion was born). The only difference in the parallels between the fictional depiction and reality is that the Cullen's were in theory able to save themselves. Once they decided to become different, their 'salvation' (being their ability to stay pure) was purely autonomous, (a more "Mormon" based ideal) where as in the Christian faith we are saved through belief in Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.
Aside from that theological observance, i actually cannot wait to read the other books, and that's really saying something, because I am SO not a reader. And like I said, If you're looking for Dickens or Austen caliber literature, you will be sorely disappointed. But if you want an easy quick read that will completely suck you in to the story and either make you fall in love with a vampire or a ware wolf... due to my lack of homage paid to the ware wold thread in the story (which is still noteworthy, just not nearly as interesting to me personally) I'm sure you can probably tell which side I am on.

The Movies "Twilight", New Moon" and "Eclipse"
I am going to categorize my critique into "story" (above) and "movies" (collectively) for one basic reason; the books go into way more detail and give you the essence of the story (the best part of this little project) where as the movies merely strive to depict the story. This is a little bit of uncharted territory for me in that I am usually the one who won't read the book, I'll just see the movie. Not only would I rather spend two hours getting the gist of the story visually rather than spend days reading it, I am always afraid that the book will minimize the impact of the movie. In this case, as I am sure would be the same in most others as well, i was right. As much as I love the art and beauty of a story told to me through light and sound, i have to admit that here the story carried most of the value. Not to say that I didn't enjoy the movies, I did. I would have enjoyed them a whole lot more if I were teenager, but I suspect I would have enjoyed them a whole lot less had I not read the book first and had the story to fall back on.
Lets start with the most obvious aspect, the acting. Dear lord. Kristen Steward (Bella) has far too many personal idiosyncrasies; it makes me think she's really not comfortable in front of a camera. Of course, I should probably give her the benefit of the doubt considering she was probably 16 when these movies started production. Taylor Lautner (Jacob) has a fantastic bod, but pretty faces don't always make for great actors. There were a few saving graces in the main cast, including Peter Facinelli (Carlisle), Anna Kendrick (Jessica) and Robert Pattinson (Edward). The rest of the supporting cast, especially in the first movie, seemed to be trying way to hard to be convincing. I think they might have gotten it together by "Eclipse" though. Everything seemed a lot less forced.
On to more good news, I thought the adaptation from the book was good. It cut out a lot of the story, but that was to be expected, and the director still made it enjoyable and entertaining.
I thought the cinematography was great, I loved the gloomy blue-ish gray hue carried throughout the whole movie, save the last scene which was actually very warm, and made Edward look nearly alive. The gloom throughout helped set the eerie small town feel, and contributed to the believability that vampires would actually reside there, and also effectively highlighted Robert Pattison's paleness. Clearly I have fallen prey at least in some measure to the Twilight-mania sweeping the nation, absurd as I know it is, and hopefully after I'm finished reading ALL these books (which will probably be around the same time the last of the movies comes out, circa 2013) I will not have let my mind turn into mush indulging in my new guilty pleasure... Oh well, there could be worse things, right?

No comments: