Breaking Dawn, Part 1
Ok, let's get something out of the way straight off: I've always liked Rob Pattinson and Kristen Stewart... and furthermore I've read and enjoyed all four books in the Twilight Series. So, consequently, I'm less likely to be overly hard on the movies, unless they do truly suck. I'm also just as likely not to launch into irrational hatred of the series: sorry to disappoint there. I don't think the series is inherently bad. No, the books may not be masterpieces of writing, but the story was compelling enough to get me to read. Yes, the movies haven't been great as a whole, but I'm going to chalk that up to directors trying to achieve a "Twilight feel" that needed to be seriously revamped after the first installment. No, I do not think that Bella (or Kristen Stewart, for that matter) is a horrible role model. She's just not. She actually shouldn't be considered a role model- good or bad- at all because she's a fictional creation. That said, people look for inspiration in a number of places: Twilight's Forks, WA included. But even if young girls are looking to model their lives after Bella, I think this is a fairly harmless endeavor. What does she do that is so bad? Marries at 18? Yep. That's about it. Sure she is stuck in a love triangle with two supernatural beings- both of whom claim to want to take care of and look after her. What's so wrong with that? The series' author, Stephanie Meyers was writing these books for tween girls. Finding a boyfriend or "boyfriend" at that age is a perfectly rational thing to do. Finding some dreamboat to look after you is rational as well. Actually, I think that's rational at any age- so long as "look after you" equates more to "helping you get through the journey that is life" than "do everything for you and completely strip you of your individuality, voice, and personality". Which approach does Meyers push in the series? The former. The wolf and vampire like Bella because she is who she is- even if the author at times neglects to fully develop that character. They like her flaws and all. And for what it's worth, Bella is constantly railing against the two of them having to take care of her- in a protection sense- from the get go- it's one of the many reasons she uses to argue why she should be changed to a vampire. She got herself into the mess, now she wants to take care of herself so others won't have to. But we all need a traveling companion, right? Twilight also pushes such ideas as accepting folks despite their differences, that important decisions are indeed weighty matters that need to be well-thought, the consequences of NOT thinking through important decisions (you might end up preggers with a half-vampire baby), and the value of love and companionship. Among others. Look, if you hate the idea of Twilight, you're going to disagree with me completely. If you love the idea of Twilight, you're going to think I left off or oversimplified issues to a great degree. I like the series, but nothing more. Is it the greatest bit of teen fiction, worthy of such obsession? Well, I suppose so, if you're one of the obsessed and you have a healthy obsession with it. Why not? It's- again- fairly harmless. Why not get excited about it all? But, it is not- and I believe this wholeheartedly- even in the discussion of worst things to ever happen to this country. What may bother me more is that it appears as though a lot of the hatred seems to be based on how popular the series is. Folks who like more higher-brow works or cult-type literature rail against this because this is what's popular at the expense of classics or should-be-classics. Come on. I doubt that any of you want to let the unwashed masses into your tidy cliques anyway. Or would you rather have it that a bunch of Hunter Thompson obsessives (and no, this is not an appropriate example, but if I started naming legit examples, I'm sure I'd wade in far over my head) showed up to the premiere of the Rum Diary dressed as Gonzo maestro himself? No, I imagine you wouldn't. But all of that is neither here nor there. Why you like or dislike something is inevitably only a tangential issue- that you like or dislike it takes center stage. In the end, we could very well leave it at "to each his own" but that would discourage some really interesting conversations. Just as long as it doesn't devolve into- I just think it and everyone who likes/dislikes it is dumb.
So how about the movie itself. If you're familiar with the series, you know where we're at. Bella and her vampire boyfriend get married, get it on during the honeymoon, and Bella ends up with a nasty lil bun in her oven. Drama ensues. But that's the long and short of it there. It is- as with Harry Potter's final chapter- one book split into two. This makes this episode mostly lead-up and that bothers me to a degree. What else can I give such a movie other than an I for incomplete? Well, actually, I think it would have made a neat story in and of itself. Particularly if they leave it where they left it (SPOILER ALERT and all that nonsense) Bella becoming a vampire to save her life... or something along those lines (after all, she is then essentially dead). If we were left to wonder what kind of vampire Bella would be, what would become of her child, etc., etc. I think that would be a great, if not classic, open-ending. They would need to add a few more hints to get the creative juices flowing, but still... So as it's own story, it's not bad, but considering there is a conclusion in the offing, it's lead-up.
Either way, the way the story is carried out does leave a bit to be desired. It's just ok, at best. By now the framework should be familiar. Wooden-ish acting, melodrama galore, and a borderline-trendy soundtrack. And if you look forward to these aspects, Breaking Dawn 1 won't disappoint. For me, it did disappoint. I really do believe that Stewart and Pattinson (though probably not Taylor Luatner) can and have given better efforts on the Silver Screen. It seems that the films' directors (in this case Bill Condon) are afraid of upsetting the extremely lucrative apple cart... in way that the folks helming the Harry Potter franchise weren't. It do do with a bit of a more substantive overhaul. This films-again- featured the same soap opera-style staging and acting. They added what was- in my mind- a completely unbalanced soundtrack. In that I mean, the soundtrack was way too loud for the movie. By that I don't mean the style or songs, but I mean the audible level of the music was out of balance, out of proportion with the sounds- including the dialog- of the movie. It was almost as though the soundtrack dominated the movie... which of course lent it more of a soap opera feel. This is a bit of a shame considering they brought back elements of the original movie's score- including Bella's Lullaby (as I believe it was called) which seemed to fit the mood of the series just perfectly. But keep it in its proper place.
Again, I think by now, Summit Entertainment has found the formula that works and they aren't about to endanger that. So, on the whole it's much in keeping with the first few Twilight movies. I can say this though, with the exception of a few pretty hokey special effect sequences, the series has never looked better. The vampires and werewolves, and even the regular folks all look more the part. The essential special effects blend in fairly well, and the backdrop of the Pacific Northwest and a few more exotic locales look gorgeous. But other than improving on the look, the film holds the status quo of the series. Personally, I think the story is more compelling than some of the others in the series. So it also has that going for it. It also has Billy Burke bucking the wooden-actor trend in his role as Bella's father, Charlie- always a wry delight. (I really do wish they would let Pattinson and Stewart shine more- Stewart in particular. She was awesome in Into the Wild, Adventureland, and, to a lesser extent, The Runaways. I wish she'd be allowed to showcase her talent more.)
What's more troublesome is the incessant nitpicking-as-criticism going on with this film. I've read a number of articles panning this movie for a lack of realism and believability. There's no way Edward could impregnate Bella. The birth scene is completely unrealistic. There's no way she could bring that baby to term so quickly. There's no way Edward could even have sex with Bella. And so on and so forth. I consider this all a second level of analysis that is completely unnecessary. After all, Stephanie Meyers, Bill Condon, and company have created the baseline of reality with such characters as vampires and werewolves. Vampires and werewolves. Hmmm. Also fortune-telling, mood-influencing, and mind-reading powers. Do we really need to go further there. I've also said the author/filmmaker are responsible in laying out a firm baseline such that the audience knows where exactly to draw the line in terms of their suspension of disbelief. In Meyers/Condon's world of Twilgiht, vampires can have sex, and- although the characters didn't know it at the time, vampires can impregnate humans. And the gestation period flies by. You can't apply real-world standards to this fictional account. No more than you can to other series. Does Spider-Man suck because there's no way a bite from a radioactive spider could turn a nerd into a superhero? Does... Dr. Who suck because scientists have recently pretty much declared time travel to be impossible. Some of these people come off sounding like Brodie's character in Mallrats. They're just thinking it through too much. Like when he offers that Superman could either only have sex with Wonder Woman or be forced to where a kryptonite condom. Otherwise the force of his blowing his super load would fire right through the lucky chick. Don't think too hard on it. In Meyers world, this all works. Does the movie stay true to this? Yeah, mostly. Is the whole world kind of absurd? Well, that question is more on point. And for my part I don't think it is. For the most part.
Just like- for the most part, I don't think this is such a horrible movie. It may not be perfect, but it doesn't even approach the debacles that were Transformers and anything Adam Sandler has been in this year. Those are true shit-cinema at its worst. This? Eh... ok.
Grade: B
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete