2011-12-27

Adding to the Twilight hate

I watched Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 the other night. A friend watched it with his wife and her friends and he'd been shocked to watch the faces of those 35 something married-with-children women.

They got so into it.

Himself, he watched over the edge his laptop as a heavily made-up, effeminate man broodingly stalked a teenager from scene to scene. Says he, "I'd really like to know what you think." So, I promised I'd watch.

A few days later I'd finally downloaded the thing from bittorremt. 40 minutes in, I was bored and irritated, nothing had happened beyond angst-filled conversations and sultry looks. I've only read one book by Meyer, The Host, and it was nothing if not action-filled. Twilight, not so much. And after that followed what must have been the shortest wedding ceremony in history (even my own wedding at City Hall took longer than that).

It took me a couple of night of Words with Friends to get through the entire movie. A scene that stuck out: Bella saying to Edward: "But they were murderers, you should give yourself some credit for that."

Wow, what an unusually insightful and deeply comforting comment.

But I wonder, why is a good thing for vampyres to deny their nature? They're supposedly predetars, humans are the preferred pray. It brings to mind The Fly and Seth agonizing: "You have to leave now, and never come back here. Have you ever heard of insect politics? Neither have I. Insects ... don't have politics. They're very ... brutal. No compassion, no compromise. We can't trust the insect. I'd like to become the first ... insect politician. Y'see, I'd like to, but ... I'm afraid ..." Vampires are superior to humans much like humans are superior to pigs (ok, fine, pigs don't talk), it seems to me the relationship ought to be similar. Edward, don't play with your food.

And then I wonder, what should Edward give himself credit for exactly? Killing "bad" people? Let's skip how Edward decided on good versus bad, how he determined if someone was bad by his definition (would he need to follow someone around more than two nights? Did he take character references? What the fuck did he eat in the meantime?). In my opinion, Edward would have done better targeting the terminally ill, the very old, the broken, the hopeless. He could have set up a Kervorkian center for people who do not want to live anymore. Now that would have been admirable, killing people who want to die.

Because Edward's "I am not who you think I am moment" lasts for at most 40 seconds in the movie I have to presume this is dealt with more at depth in the book. I should check, really I should.

Something I don't get. Before Bella and Edward sets off for the honeymoon there is much todo about Bella's last night as a human. Edward is supposed to "turn" Bella, but Bella decides she wants a "normal" honeymoon. When he learns, Jakobs runs off yelling that Edward will kill her. And yet and yet. Bella and Edward lands on the pretty island. They e v e n t u a l l y have sex and nothing happens except Bella looks like a bruised apple and Edward broodingly refuses to have sex again. How was this supposed to kill her? E v e n t u a l l y Bella persuades Edward to have sex again by whimpering like a puppy -- Wtf, Edward? -- and Bella finds herself pregnant and in danger of her life. But this was not what was *supposed* to kill Bella, the pregnancy was unprecedented, something that oughtn't be able to happen. What was it that was supposed to kill Bella? Tell me, tell me now!

Bella decides to keep the baby. This part is not so surprising. This may be the instinct of most women who find themselves pregnant by their vampyre husbands on their honeymoon, what do I know. But she decides to carry it to term knowing not only that it will kill her but that it will turn into some vaguely fearsome monster -- as evidenced by Edward's research in his vampyre family's ancient library on Google image search.

It's kind of clear from the beginning that Bella is of the love-will-conquer-all variety, but my heart really swelled when she exclaimed: "I know I can do this!" As if over-coming illness is just attitude. Well, maybe it is, maybe the rest of us are just weak.

Anyway, blah, blah, Bella suffers in quiet martyrdom on the couch while her stomach grows and grows and Jabok and Edward broods and broods. I read an article on Jezebel recently, The Popularity And Perfectionism Behind Butt Sex. The writer of the article concludes: "It's hard not to see the growing popularity of anal sex as yet another manifestation of the pressure on young women to focus on performance rather than on their own pleasure. Because it is both so agonizing (for some) and so intimate, receiving anal is instantly recognizable as the most selfless of common sexual acts. Giving a blowjob is generally less painful — and you can even keep your clothes on. The payoff of letting your boyfriend fuck you in the ass isn't the humiliation that's eroticized in male-centered pornography. The payoff isn't even the chance to prove your devotion to a guy. Perhaps the greatest incentive to do anal is the chance to prove the all-important capacity to endure pain. Hitch may have found the pleasure overrated. But for most (certainly not all) young women, pleasure doesn't seem to be the point."

Bella is the perfect woman, not only is she willing, longing even, to endure the pain of having sex with Edward, but she is willing suffer through, without complaining, just looking rather sad and all-suffering, a pregnancy that everyone, including herself, believes will kill her.

I don't get at what point after the birth and Bella dying Edward decides that she's is still alive agin, love the red eyes though.

Btw, I just realized why the movie felt so, um, full of references I didn't get. There has been like three other movies before it. Hah. Pure pleasure I bet, ok, pirate bay.


No comments:

Post a Comment