Hm, perhaps it is because I have nothing to be miserable about or general lack of giving a damn, but it looks like this blog hasn't been updated in a dog's year. Again, I seek to change that, but I usually don't have much to complain about these days that I don't already air to roommates and friends and such. But for my own edification, I feel that I need to start anew my hatred of the Twilight series, the multimedia franchise that has stolen the affections of prepubescent tweens, mentally deficient teenage girls, and desperately lonely housewives that, for some inexplicable reason, has become more popular than Christianity.
The first remark I have to make comes by way of the pretentious film buff in me. The notion of romance with vampires is a road well-traveled, beginning with the brides of Dracula in Bram Stoker's novel. Apparently becoming a vampire also means becoming a libertine, pursuing the sins of the flesh, the ecstasy of carnality. And it makes sense, certainly. It is well-developed in the novel, and further adaptations of vampire stories (Ann Rice, mostly) have portrayed it in a compelling way, see Neil Jordan's Interview with the Vampire. Hell, even Park Chan-Wook's Thirst was a compelling take on the vampire romance, establishing an intriguing dichotomy between a libertine vampire and her more conservative lover. With such representations in mind, how can anyone find it interesting to listen to a bunch of anemic teenagers complain about their tough lives when they're teenagers with typical teenage problems. How can anyone find this interesting? Especially considering the billions of representations of vampires that are infinitely more compelling than this dreck. Admittedly, some of the stuff is obscure, but how that takes away from its genius is beyond my comprehension.
My next point is the inaccurate representation of vampire mythology, something that has been well established throughout the ages. Vampires age slowly, cannot withstand sunlight, sleep in coffins, are remarkably pale, suck blood to survive, and are often endowed with super powers, like being able to turn into a bat or something. Even the little girl from the absolutely brilliant film Let the Right One In ripped people to shreds when the opportunity presented itself. On the contrary, Edward Cullen is a "vegetarian," sparkles when sun hits his accurately pallid face, is too much of a pussy to use his powers, and doesn't have a coffin in his living room. I can understand putting a spin on your story, but when it completely does away with established canon, you should call it something else. Instead of vampires, call them something more accurate, like namby-pamby twatrackets.
The bile machine has fired at full force, I believe. The whole deal with Stephanie Mayer being a Mormon and using the series as a springboard to promote Mormon values really doesn't have any bearing on the bastardization of vampire mythology or inanity of the plot. Blade, embarrassingly, is a better representation of vampire mythos and has Wesley Snipes kicking the shit out of Stephen Dorff. If that doesn't excite you, I don't know what will.
PS. Does anyone else find it funny that Kristen Stewart seems capable of two facial emotions? Apparently her acting coach didn't tell her that 'bemused wonderment' and 'sudden fright' were just a few emotions on the spectrum
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)