the TWILITE thing

[Kegg]

The only thing that baffles me about Twilight is the sizeable hatedom, but I'm too apathetic to care. I guess there must be people who have felt put upon by unreasonably squeeing Twilight fans, but for some reason I've never encountered any (and I've known people who at least liked the movie well enough.) I understand a little better those who dislike it for its troubling thematic content, but far me it for me to judge somebody else's fantasies.

However, I love Sky Plus forever for this summary of the picture:

Tasty teen bloodscuker Robert Pattinson fang-cies delicious Kirsten Stewart in this hit vamp drama.

Ahem. Seriously though, can't we let people flock to New Moon in peace now?

The ultimate conclusions were goofy, but much of the underlying information about the history of mythology and religion was quite accurate. The assertions about the Priory of Sion, were ridiculous,

The ridiculous quotient of the Da Vinci Code goes somewhat beyond the Priory of Sion. Defend it as literature or at least entertaining pulp if you must, but let's not go down the road of its psuedohistory amounting to anything, please.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

Tell me you're not equating a work of vision like "300" to boring dreck like "Twilight"?

I am, for I personally found 300 to be some of the most tiresomely boring dreck I've ever had the misfortune of being subjected to. And while I appreciate your defense of the movie, for I always enjoy your posts and respect your opinion, your interpretation strikes me as not unlike the various interpretations of the Roadrunner and WIle E. Coyote. I've read interpretations of Roadrunner equating it to everything from Communism versus Capitalism to a metaphor for the hollow dependence on technology over nature. The point being, if something is thematically simplistic enough, one can read just about anything into it. Personally, I found 300 to be a ludicrous exercise in a particular kind of confused hypermasculinity, which is indeed both homophobic (casting the Spartans as disdainful of Athenians for being boy-lovers?? The Spartans? Did the author bother to find out a single thing about this ancient culture?) and homoerotic. And it is violence porn - the "story" was so crudely drawn as to barely exhibit the faintest traces of a plot, characterisation largely consisted of flexing oiled CGI-enhanced muscles and the extended slow motion shots of spurting blood and the hacking of limbs was not only laughable but became increasingly tedious as the movie crawled on and on and on...

All that said, I respect that people enjoyed it - it simply wasn't my cup of tea. I have a variety of low brow trash that I adore and I don't begrduge anyone else their trash of choice.

for a film supposedly about young love, Twilight is dryer than a 70-year-old Amish spinster. For fuck's sake, a vampire is a built-in sex metaphor;

I haven't seen the movie Twilight, and have only listened to about 1/3 of the audio book before I concluded that it is all basically teenage vampire fanfiction - also not my cup of tea. Vampires are a built-in sex metaphor, sure, but once again, this is a story aimed at 13 year old girls, who have little appreciation and no understanding for erotic passion in and of itself. What they are interested in is the notion of a higher courtly love that transcends sex - thus why Edward could "kill" (penetrate, i.e. fuck) Bella, but does not because he loves her. There's nothing erotic about it and there's not supposed to be. It is rather specifically anti-erotic.

I really do beg to differ as I find the Harry Potter material to be devoid of anything other than the most basic message of heroic fiction - be good, be brave, loving friendships are good, cruelty is wrong. These aren't really themes or motifs, they are simply part of the narrative form.

Don't get me wrong, I like Harry Potter - but I think it's wrong to discuss it as if it had any weight. A lot of fantasy literature does - LotR and its extended meditation on death, His Dark Materials and its elucidation of innocence versus experience, etc. But HP doesn't explore anything except rip-roaring adventure and there's nothing wrong with that.

I thought Harry Potter was quite interestingly complex, by the end. One of Rowling's strengths as an author is that she doesn't devote significant space to overt consideration of ideas, instead usually raising them by implication when she describes events. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is at least as complex as the Illiad, which is still widely taught.

Oh dear, that's a brave comparison, but I'd call it a pretty inaccurate one. There's a huge difference between complicated and complex. HP is complicated - a lot happens, but it doesn't mean much. The Iliad is complex and multi-layered - really not that much happens but it means a lot. The Iliad treats themes of the horrors of war and the glory of victorious battle, the tension between a soldier's glory and a man's peace with family, the price of pride and the pursuit of glory, the impermanance of all human endeavors, and the interaction of fate versus free will. Though several people have argued with me about the complexity of HP, no one has yet produced a discussion of its complex and multi-layered themes. I wish they would though, for that would be an interesting thread.

Just as a broad swath of the American population enjoyed The DaVinci Code despite it being poorly written claptrap . . .

While it wasn't beautifully written, it certainly wasn't claptrap. The ultimate conclusions were goofy, but much of the underlying information about the history of mythology and religion was quite accurate. The assertions about the Priory of Sion, were ridiculous, but much of the other material is supported by a great deal of 20th Century academic work. I particularly recommend This Believing World: A Simple Account of the Great Religions of Mankind, by Lewis Browne, an American rabbi.

Actually I wrote that, not Marian (no sweat though, the quote function can be tricky).

Most of the assertions of The DaVinci Code were ridiculous, the Priory of Sion stuff simply being the most outlandish - but Brown couldn't even get the information about Leonardo right and those facts are pretty easy to look up. None of which would bother me in the slightest in any fantasy novel of its sort except that Brown kept running around acting like he was some sort of historical scholar and defending the historical accuracy of the book. I honestly don't recall it giving much discussion to the history of mythology and religion, but the fact that it threw in a reference or two to the hieros gamos isn't really reason to give it any respect in terms of its historicity. Brown grabbed up bits and pieces of lore from a variety of sources and wove it together into a page-turning potboiler that brought to the mass public a bunch of ideas that have been floating around alternative religious circles for 30 years. Some of the ideas he used are interesting, even compelling, but the fact that he chose good material to use in his story doesn't really make the novel any better. At least in my humble opinion.

 

[Kegg]

I found 300 to be a ludicrous exercise in a particular kind of confused hypermasculinity, which is indeed both homophobic (casting the Spartans as disdainful of Athenians for being boy-lovers?? The Spartans? Did the author bother to find out a single thing about this ancient culture?) and homoerotic.

Quite. Homophobia and homoeroticism aren't an either/or equation, and "300" rather blatantly uses both.

I enjoyed it the first time around for the highly stylised imagery and completely shameless, aggressively absurd masculinity, but it is not very rewatchable. That it is hypermasculine is no question - even the token female principle has her masculinity emphasized as empowering and eliminates her male opponent in a figurative rape (and if anyone wants to dispute that bit, well, isn't that the reason she repeats his words back to him after stabbing him with a phallic object?)

There are times it seems Xerxes' main crime isn't that he's a brutal dictator lording it over many nations, but that he's so damn effeminate.

I still think it is a very, very pretty film to look at, though I recall that you don't.

 

[Stone_Cold_Sisko]

But most of all, 300 evinces a constant sense of irony, the awareness of its own hyperbolic nature, that complicity with the audience that the text they are reading can be read literally, but to do so would be to miss the really good stuff. 300 is a tremendously funny film whose highly stylized production continuously, deliberatly undermines the content and reveals the artifice behind what is, essentially, a pastiche of propaganda set in the distant past. By adopting (admittedly, late in the game) the metanarrative of the War of Terror and exaggerating it to grotesque proportions it reveals the underlying ugliness. The impossibly bombastic physical violence is the carnivalesque uprising of the ideological violence. Great film. And of course many other 'genre' films contain this kind of humourous self-referentiality.

I'm not sure where you're getting this from but Frank Miller wrote 300, was a producer on the film, and the film was incredibly faithful. There is no meta-commentary or irony behind it or it's 'overblown exaggerated' violence, that's what Miller thinks is cool and has been there in everything from 300 to Dark Knight Returns to Sin City and others.

In fact, though this is much later than when the original graphic novel was written, Miller is VERY gung-ho about the "War on Terror", and was planning on writing a comic series about Batman hunting down and beating the snot out of AL-Queda type terrorists, in similar over-the-top Miller-esque violence.

I like '300' just fine, but considering Snyder's worship of the comics he adapts to film, I'm reasonably sure there was no attempt to make an ironic or subversive statement, or expose the 'underlying ugliness' of propaganda-driven Wars on Terror. In response to controversy about '300' and what it represents, Miller says:
These people saw people’s heads off. They enslave women, they genitally mutilate their daughters, they do not behave by any cultural norms that are sensible to us. I’m speaking into a microphone that never could have been a product of their culture, and I’m living in a city where three thousand of my neighbors were killed by thieves of airplanes they never could have built.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I still think it is a very, very pretty film to look at, though I recall that you don't.

It might have been - I didn't see it on the big screen. On the small screen it looked fairly ridiculous. And I must admit that merely pretty movies tend to bore me to tears because I am pretty narrative-oriented. My general opinion is if you want to make great pictures, be a visual artist. I can watch Viola's and Rist's (among others) work repeatedly and for hours. If you want to make movies, tell a good story. But I'm not sure there's any circumstance in which I would find aestheticized violence and dismemberment worth extended attention.

 

[Praxius]

I didn't mean sexual pornography. "Violence porn" is a term that means stories (usually in the loosest sense of the word) that pander to base instincts through thinly connected scenes of extended violence, the way pornography is just thinly connected scenes of extended sex.

Ah, I get you now I think.... I always just assumed Pornography was always related to sex. I can't say I remember anybody where I live relating violence to porn.

300 referred to an actual historical event - but that's all it did. Its representation of Spartan culture and the history of the actual event was complete fantasy. And, in its defense, it makes this completely clear with the 7 foot tall Xerxes the Queen.

As did Braveheart. The original story was all twisted and distorted in a way that would appeal to a movie audience.... that and Gibson isn't known much for historical accuracy.

My main point though was that Twilight and its fans are being bashed for enjoying something that is poorly written, trashy and that panders to immature fantasy wish fulfillment - there is also an underlying thread that girls are stupid for enjoying this kind of thing. I'm merely trying to point out that guys have similarly stupid and immature material that they love - and 300 is a good example of this.

I get what you're saying now.... although I think a better example of a fantasy movie guys are really into would be Heavy Metal.

It is utter trash that panders to male fantasies of melodramatic violence in much the way Twilight panders to female fantasies of melodramatic romance.

Fair enough.... I think I was responding in a manner that still related to people talking about how this movie saga is somehow going to corrupt their children's minds or something..... this is just something that has always been around that some people will enjoy more then others..... it's just entertainment not a religion. Although some people have made movies into religions before CoughcoughStarWardsJediCoughCough.... excuse me.

I did not mean to belittle the repsonsiblity most men feel in regards to making a child, however I was referring specifically to the physical risks inherent to the female, which you rather blithely dismiss in your last phrase here. You can say "if the roles were reversed" all you want, but they aren't and they never will be and this makes facing initial sexual encounters fundamentally different in one hugely important aspect for males and females.

To a degree I agree and I do see your point. Just in how I read your last response I decided to go a bit on the defense until both sides were equally recognized for what they are.

While women to carry a serious physical risk of carrying and having a child, studies have shown that men handle divorces much worse then women, esspecially if children are involved.

I'm not about to go hunting for a source to back this up at the moment, but knowing what my parents when through in their divorce, my mom seemed to handle it a heck of a lot better then my dad and my dad was a living wreck for over two years during the whole situation.

I'm not claiming this to be always the case in every relationship, but when looking at all the factors that are involved in handling children (not just physically carrying/birthing the child or money issues) in my eyes, things are just about par as it goes for how much each gender stresses and worries over having kids... just in their own different ways.

Are there some shared anxieties? Of course. Meanwhile, a guy will never, ever, have to face the possibility of death (thousands of women die in America each year while delivering children), or the other physical consequences of sex that a girl has to face. So when Bella eventually becomes pregnant with a vampire child who endagers her physical health and even her life, but who she carries out of love for Edward, this is a metaphor specific to young women's anxieties regarding sexual awakening.

I can't say I've gotten beyond the first movie to know how this all unfolds or if they have children, so I can not comment on this exactly. At this stage of the story and my current knowledge, they're just trying to figure out how to make their relationship work with all the differences they have.

I apologize if you find my comments offensive as they are not intended to minimize the deep feelings most guys have regarding the consequences of sex, child bearing and child rearing. But it's still different for women due to the physical demands of childbirth.

Fair enough, I figured a bit of clarification would sort things out, and like I said, I wasn't super offended or anything.... just slightly sensing a bit of possible offense depending on my full understanding of what you were trying to say.

I agree that the weight gains, the changes in the body, the altering of the lower spine, the higher demands of energy and body resources, mood swings that vary on the day, the risks of birth, the sensations of giving birth, stretch marks, how some claim their genitals don't look the same, extra skin after the birth, plus if you decide to breast feed.... .all of these things are a big impact on the female body and mind. Not to mention the missing out of work/jobs and such.

As for guys, the support demand for the pregnant woman does increase as the pregnancy progresses. Any decent man who accepts his responsibilities for his actions would be there every chance he can be, listen to her problems, needs, etc..... Later on in the pregnancy and then birth, usually the guy would take on the bigger role of being the only financial source until she can get back to work, if she decides to. To drive around, pick up things, help out anyways they can..... the whole drive of obligation for what has happened and what you have helped do to the woman you love can be very strong. The whole process of bringing in a new life that's directly connected to yourself, thus a part of yourself can be a strong drive.

Sure no man will ever truly know the impact of such a change in the physical and mental for women, but do women truly know the mental and physical effects this has on men being the main support role and witnessing a transition that you are partially responsible for and yet have no real physical ability to help make it easier? The physical effects on a man may be trivial, but the mental can be very powerful.... which does eventually connect to the physical.

I don't have children yet, but I have thought about it at great lengths at times over the years / what it will all mean and if I am the way I am now in thinking towards my role as a father.... I can only imagine what my mind process and the effect it has on my life will be when I do have a child come along.

Of course then you have your selfish, irresponsible jerks who knock someone up and then take off as if it's not their problem..... those type of people, if they want to live that way, should have a vasectomy so they don't ruin other people's lives. Then again, people should also use their heads in avoiding these type of clowns.

Anywho, I guess we sorta went off topic somewhere.... what's the subject again?

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I'm not about to go hunting for a source to back this up at the moment, but knowing what my parents when through in their divorce, my mom seemed to handle it a heck of a lot better then my dad and my dad was a living wreck for over two years during the whole situation.

I don't need you to quote any sources. I have been around to see good friends go through unbelieveable mental, emotional and financial stress and trauma as they struggle to get ex-wives and the courts to acknowledge their rights as fathers and to be an active parent to their children after divorce. It's amazing how much they have had to fight for that, and how little they have managed to win despite tremendous effort and being incredible fathers. Watching them go through that has really changed my perception of what it takes for a guy to be a good father, and it is something I greatly respect.

 

[Kegg]

And I must admit that merely pretty movies tend to bore me to tears because I am pretty narrative-oriented. My general opinion is if you want to make great pictures, be a visual artist. I can watch Viola's and Rist's (among others) work repeatedly and for hours. If you want to make movies, tell a good story.

See, I'd consider film a visual artform, every bit as much as painting. This is partly why I love silent film, since the best such films are pure excerises in visual storytelling.

I'm also in some ways a tremendously shallow person, in that I love films that look very visually striking to me. I already know that I'll like James Cameron's Avatar at least as well as I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, fer instance. Cinema's capacity for astounding images has been one of the things I've loved about it since before I can remember, really.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

And I must admit that merely pretty movies tend to bore me to tears because I am pretty narrative-oriented. My general opinion is if you want to make great pictures, be a visual artist. I can watch Viola's and Rist's (among others) work repeatedly and for hours. If you want to make movies, tell a good story.

See, I'd consider film a visual artform, every bit as much as painting. This is partly why I love silent film, since the best such films are pure excerises in visual storytelling.

I'm also in some ways a tremendously shallow person, in that I love films that look very visually striking to me. I already know that I'll like James Cameron's Avatar at least as well as I enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, fer instance. Cinema's capacity for astounding images has been one of the things I've loved about it since before I can remember, really.

I'd agree that film is a visual artform. However movies are equally visual and narrative. I can sometimes forgive bad visuals for a good story (largely because I come to film from a theater background where the audience is often required to do a lot of the filling in of the visual aspect), but I generally can't forgive a bad story for good visuals - which is just a personal prejudice. Clever use of visuals to tell a story is a plus. I found The Fountain to be an incredibly striking film. The story was rather simple - it's essentially just a Buddhist parable told in a layered, cyclical manner, and the visuals were enough to sustain the build of the cycles. They were also highly symbolic. Things like the SW prequels, King Kong, Sleepy Hollow, 300 - I can admire the skill required to create the visuals, but the visuals themselves don't sustain my interest. They are technically impressive, but lack meaning. Not to say there isn't art that captures me purely for its technical skill, but digital FX supposedly created in service of a story that is just a succession of pretty pictures - I don't know, I find it hard to care about it if the story it's supposed to be telling is lame.

 

[SeerSGB]

Miley Cyrus don't like Twilight...or the fans (linkage)

Let’s see, so far Miley Cyrus has said she doesn’t like pop music (although she sings it), she thinks Twitter should be banned from the universe and now she hates Twilight. Basically, she’s telling all her fans that she thinks everything they like except her sucks.

Oh the irony in her taking on Twlight fans...

Bad enough to the the butt of bashing of Trekkies and 'Wars fans, but to end up taking it from Miley Cyrus

 

[Kegg]

I generally can't forgive a bad story for good visuals - which is just a personal prejudice.

I can't forgive it, but I can still enjoy ogling it. A weak story may be another issue, particularly if the film raises itself above that story. I'm afraid the only example I can think of offhand is Koyaaniqatsi - honestly, whenever Reggio opens his mouth to explain the themes of that film it sounds like the tritest thing imaginable. That movie is practically story-less, a pure audiovisual experience of Philip Glass and moving images, and in that it's a total triumph.

Clever use of visuals to tell a story is a plus. I found The Fountain to be an incredibly striking film. The story was rather simple - it's essentially just a Buddhist parable told in a layered, cyclical manner, and the visuals were enough to sustain the build of the cycles. They were also highly symbolic. Things like the SW prequels, King Kong, Sleepy Hollow, 300 - I can admire the skill required to create the visuals, but the visuals themselves don't sustain my interest.

Well, the only point of comparison between something like The Fountain and King Kong is they're both pretty. But even ignoring whatever one thinks of the Fountain's story, the film just has some memorably concieved images

Spoiler: The Fountain

like the plant growing out of a man. I must confess I've never seen that before, which may be showing my ignorance of some trippy imagery I'd rather like to get a hold of.

It's not just spectacle, I love really well conceived images often even more.

King Kong, well, it'd depend which one you're talking about. The original is a classic, the 1970s one I'm none too keen on, and the new one has great spectacle true but I'd rather not ever see it again. Blech, I have limits.

 

[JustKate]

I just can't get over how much more intelligent the discussions in this thread are than the Twilight "thing." OK, I haven't seen the movie(s) or read any of the books, but I've seen snippets and I tried to read one of the books and...

Blech. Like a romance novel - a really baaaaaaad one - but with vampires instead of Regency rakes.

Generally speaking, I'd say nearly anything that gets kids reading is a good thing, and I wouldn't say this is necessarily bad. But it's hard to imagine this schlock leading girls into reading something more...substantial.

 

[Joy]

I am only harsh on Twilight because I have read all four books AND I was at the midnight showing of "Twilight." So I feel as though I have suffered enough of the material to be properly vehement against it.

When I first read, I didn't mind it, but mostly because I had nothing else to read at the time, Harry Potter 7 having already been out and finished. As I remember back to my experiences reading the Twilight books, I realize just how apathetic I ended up being by the end. I just had absolutely no connection nor any emotional investment in any of it. The only reason I read through to the bitter end was because I am too curious of a person and have this thing about leaving a story unfinished.

Looking back, all I can really say positively about the Twilight "saga" is to commend Meyer for making tons of money on a very stupid, blatant Mary Sue.

Seriously, Bella and Eragon are MADE for each other.

Joy

 

[Awesome Possum]

I read somewhere that Twilight was just really bad Anne Rice fanfiction that instead of dying on some forgotten website wound up making millions.

 

[SeerSGB]

I read somewhere that Twilight was just really bad Anne Rice fanfiction that instead of dying on some forgotten website wound up making millions.

Who knows, that may be accurate. With my limited exposure to "Twilight" (that took a FEMA Hazmat team and wire brushes to scrub off), I can see where that might be a valid point. I guess when Rice went all born again, someone had to flow in to feel the emo-stalker-vampire genre slot.

 

[Awesome Possum]

If I had a daughter I wouldn't want her to read the series given the message seems to be that life isn't worth living until you find a stalker/boyfriend. I'd just point her to the Whedon section on the dvd shelf for her vampire fix.

 

[Lapis Exilis]

King Kong, well, it'd depend which one you're talking about. The original is a classic, the 1970s one I'm none too keen on, and the new one has great spectacle true but I'd rather not ever see it again. Blech, I have limits.

YIKES! I meant the most recent one. I would never diss the original...

 

[Tyson]

Twilight only encourages young girls to believe that creepy stalker based abusive relationships are healthy and wonderful; anyone over the age of 13 that likes that shit should be ashamed of themselves and take a leisurely stroll into an oncoming transport truck.

 

[Aragorn]

I saw some young teenage girls at the bookstore fawning all over some New Moon items and it was clear they weren't really sure why they were fawning.

Also, Roger Ebert gives New Moon * out of four stars.

 

[Spaceman Spiff]

King Kong, well, it'd depend which one you're talking about. The original is a classic, the 1970s one I'm none too keen on, and the new one has great spectacle true but I'd rather not ever see it again. Blech, I have limits.

YIKES! I meant the most recent one. I would never diss the original...

I thought you liked the new one.