The 25th Frame
Why does “True Blood” kick the ass out of “Twilight”? Probably because Edward Cullen could never go at it for 6 hours solid; not without pining at something or moping...
Hello, fellow HEAVE readers, friends and countrymen. I disappear for a little while to finish up finals, graduate college and turn 22 and what happens? Hell if I know; as I was raised to believe in my family, I'm the wacky neighbor in the great sitcom of life. Chances are, I'm not paying attention (but I am).
Now I return to you and just in time for “Eclipse”! Giddy, right?! No.
Though I have yet to see it (I went to the crowds of “New Moon” and that was enough for me to hold off on opening weekend this time) I imagine my take will be much like Dominick's review. David Slade is definitely an interesting choice of director compared to Hardwicke and Weitz, but there's only so much one can do with such angst driven material. Personally, I feel the entire franchise plays out like an old WB sitcom with supernatural characters. I enjoyed “Buffy” more. At least they had witty dialogue and characters. Now if Joss Whedon were doing “Breaking Dawn” I would be interested...
However, I digress like I always do. I wanted to talk to you about another vampire franchise, “True Blood”; because unless you've been under a rock for the last 5 years, vampires have been, well, big in media. Yes, you can feel my soapbox coming out and that's okay. This is my column after all and I would not lead you astray (for a small fee, of course). However, I still meet people who have never seen the show and yet are obsessed with “Twilight”. Not okay. Friend...let's talk, you and I.
For the record, I refuse to call “Twilight” a saga; so I'll just be referring to all the books under the umbrella of “Twilight”. I think you'll manage. For those who have not heard of it, “True Blood” is an (extremely) HBO show based on the “Southern Vampire Mysteries” that started in 2001 ;so suck it, “Twilight”, published in 2005, “True Blood” got there first. Set in a world where the existence of vampires has been public knowledge for a few years, “True Blood” centers on Sookie Stackhouse, a telepathic waitress in a small Louisiana town and her developing relationship with her 170 year old vampire boyfriend Bill Compton, new in town as numerous murders begin occurring.
I'm here to give you a small taste (pun intended) and why you should look into it.
First off: the vampires themselves, who actually have fangs, you non-fang “Twilight” vamps. This has always been something that has annoyed me about the “Twilight” series. There is no question that vampires are the pinnacle of sexuality in the canon of supernatural creatures. They're entire design is about illusions of beauty, seduction and ultimately how such illusions can drain you (pun intended). “Twilight” and it's vampires are symbols of chastity, which is frankly an unclever use of the vampire image. In the end, it's flat out boring and bolstered by poor writing (in both book and film form) it's ultimately laughable. Numerous lines uttered by both Bella and Edward would have me rolling my eyes or running for the door if my date said such things.
“True Blood” makes no mistake that it's a cable show: everyone in it is getting it on; vampire or otherwise. It also makes no qualms that it is physicality that draws the characters together, which is refreshing when the word “destiny” keeps getting thrown around in the marketing campaigns for “Twilight”. The show makes no apologies that vampires, while incredibly complicated (far more than their “Twilight” brethren) are all about sex; some have different reasons and/or motivations, but there's no vampire who believes in abstinence.
Another thing to love about “True Blood” is how vampires are not in the shadows such as in “Twilight”, physically or metaphorically. In “Twilight”, vamps cannot be found in the sun, not because they'll die (like vampires should when exposed to sunlight) but because they'll sparkle (like they should never do). I know...this has been repeated over and over but that's because it is an argument that never, ever loses it's power.
Obviously everyone knows in the world of “Twilight” that a sparkling individual equals vampire, just like Grandpa warned them about. If that's the case, then Boystown is overrun with vamps (which would explain all the sex).
It's fantastic to watch vampires on “True Blood” assimilate (or not) with the rest of the world as vampires must contend not only with human laws but their own as well, vampire politics and hierarchies being a mainstay of the second and current third season. Rather than be symbols of chastity, the vamps of “True Blood” serve as symbols for minorities more often than not; supernatural, blood drinking, sometimes violent, often funny, always attractive minorities. One can argue that approach is more relevant than chastity, yes?
If there is one other area I'd like to compare the two, it would be in the central heroines of Sookie Stackhouse (“True Blood”) and Bella Swan (“Twilight”). Truth is, there is no comparison; Sookie kicks Bella's ass.
From my experience with Bella, she exists as a rash, petulant, overly dramatic, dependent girl with little empathy for those around her and a knack for putting herself (and her loved ones) in dangerous positions for no real reason. Frankly, Bella strikes me as an irrational example for the young girls who are the target demographic of the franchise; for a girl to find love, she must behave in such manners (not healthy, young ladies. Take up a sport). From what I could gather, there was really nothing wrong with Bella's life before she met Edward. Upon meeting him, she decides that becoming a vampire will solve all her issues that don't seem to exist? Clearly, she's never seen one of “True Blood's” many flashback scenes that state the contrary (especially for poor Bill Compton, who has had a hard 170+ years).
For the record, all that screaming (if that is what you want to call it...sounded like a goat getting mauled my a machine of some kind) Bella lets out in “New Moon”? Yeah, that pretty much sums up my distaste for the character. That and she's boring. And bland. And cannot get through an entire sentence without a huge pause (more a comment on Kristen Stewart as an actress, but still).
Sookie on the other hand is a standalone opposite of Bella. At the show's start, she is naive in many ways, but not without a spark of joy for those around her (unlike Bella). What matters to her are her friends and family. Upon meeting Bill, he becomes a major force in her life, but she never forgets those around her and never rushes to the conclusion that she must become a vampire. Unlike Bella, who deals only in ultimatums (again unhealthy), Sookie sees such a topic as a massive decision and approaches it with a greater sense of responsibility and foresight than Bella.
Further, as the series has progressed, Sookie has actually retained a fair portion of her experiences and has gone from a girl in distress, like Bella remains throughout most of the “Twilight” series, to a relatively savvy navigator of the supernatural world; all without having to become a vampire. That takes brains, balls and ultimately heart; none of which really stand out in the character of Bella.
Format aside, “True Blood” is superior to “Twilight” because it makes fantastic leaps with the vampire archetype while adhering to vampire mythology, boasts stronger and more memorable performances (the entire ensemble is given ample time to great effect) and simply put, is more fun and intriguing in the end. It's definitely a love it or hate it show, but should you get sucked in, you'll find it difficult to let go. Oftentimes, that's what entertainment is all about, and unlike “Twilight”, which tries to pass as important (don't lie, it tries) on some level with it's messages of destiny and chastity, “True Blood's” only intention is to take you on a wild, fantastic ride.
I'm game.
Posted by Max Alborn on Jul 02, 2010 @ 9:09 am
