The 25th Frame
"New Moon" can appeal to a wide audience--from tween girls to gay men--provided they don't care about plot, acting, or internal logic.
*As I will be
on vacation next week, this week's column is a little more to love.
Unless you've been living on a distant planet (in which case, you're fortunate), you've heard of the “Twilight” series and how the second installment “New Moon” took the box office this past weekend with over $140 million in sales. A record opening sure, but on a side tangent, it still was not enough to break the record of a superior film in every way: “The Dark Knight”. Yes, I know that “Knight” will not hold the top spot forever but if there was any justice in the world, it would not be taken down by “New Moon”. Now that I know there is a sliver of justice, I can admit to something horrifying.
I was among the crowds to see “New Moon”. There is a reason for this.
I am not a Twihard on any level. In the recent craze of vampires, I prefer “True Blood”. It's bloody, it's sexy and it's characters (despite the absurdity the show can bring) are far more dynamic and dare I say believable.
“Twilight” is an unoriginal paradigm on teenage chastity using vampires, the most sexualized fictional creature around.
Clever? No.
Boring? Absolutely.
Inexplicable? Completely.
However, my boyfriend Greg is a little bit of a Twihard. Not a complete, fall on the floor screaming Twihard, but enough to go opening weekend. Of course he didn't want to go alone, so he asked me to go with. Given my opinion of the “Twilight” series, I had two (I believe reasonable) demands; he buy the tickets and dinner. He followed through, so off I went to “New Moon”.
So there I stood in line, waiting for our sold out show to let us get seated. It's safe to say I have not been around that many preteen girls since middle school, a time in my life I am thankful to have left behind.
The packed theater was not much different; filled with giggling/screaming preteens, their screaming mothers (a disturbing image), many of my gay brethren and disgruntled boyfriends *cough* of all creeds.
The screening itself went exactly as you would expect it to go. Girls screamed at the sight of Edward and/or Jacob and even applauded at the point where Jacob rushes to save lead heroine Bella; as if the books or trailers had not indicated this would happen.
I was a little thrown off when Michael Sheen, of “Frost/Nixon” and “The Queen” fame, showed up as the leader of the Italian vampires, Aro. Here, in a film riddled with charisma free actors, Sheen shines for ten minutes with what he is given and reminds the glazed over preteens that vampires are actually supposed to have some level of horror to them. The thought that popped into my head: “there is an actor...in a 'Twilight' movie...I think I've fallen asleep...”
Personally, I found myself laughing at several points where I believe the filmmakers were going for drama, rather than comedy. Screw it. I was not alone in my laughter. Walking out of the theater, I was met with more crowds clamoring for a space in their sold out lines. What fuels such fervor for material that was marketed as a drama and came out a comedy (at least to me)?
The success of the “Twilight” franchise, like the series itself, is not wildly original. Everything about the films screams “hot for the moment”, which would explain why Summit Entertainment is scrambling capitalize on the media coverage of the series and get the remaining books adapted ASAP. “Eclipse” wrapped production last month and “Breaking Dawn” is on deck. It helps that the franchise is based on a wildly popular book series, which attributed to the success of the first film. As the demographic for the series is largely women and gay men (hi Greg!), I have to observe something.
When it comes to entertainment in any medium, women and gay men are far more emotional than rational. “Twilight”, whether in book or film form, play off this to a tee. There is no rational anywhere in the series. I'm not saying that emotions are not important to a story, especially a love story. However, without a dash of rationale thrown into the mix, how are any of the characters supposed to feel believable, let alone likable or relatable?
Another factor that fuels the film franchise is it's “star” power, if I am forced to call it something. The media blitz over Robert Pattinson in the first film and similar coverage over Taylor Lautner for the second are examples of pop culture overexposure; building on the “heartthrob status” of the two male leads to sell it to a shrieking demographic. Will their stars last? Given the nature of said screaming demographic, I'd bet my money elsewhere. There's always a new (better looking) guy around the corner. Hopefully he has some talent to put on display. All Lautner has to offer is his body (which seemed to get smaller as the film went on) and all Pattinson has to offer is...his hair? I couldn't tell you but since neither of them have offered any believable acting range, their futures look grim.
It's understandable why many would love the series. Who wouldn't love to have an immortal lover who would die for you or a rough and tumble werewolf boyfriend with a ripped body? Sounds decent in the head, but on the page and screen, it's a paper thin fantasy with little depth or originality not only as a film but as a cultural phenomenon. However, it has been my experience and observation that fans of the series do not care about originality. They merely scream “he's so DREAMY!” A dialogue cannot be built with such inflamed opinions fueled by sensory emotion. So like any flame, it must be allowed to dwindle and die. How do I know this will happen?
Greg, my pseudo-Twihard boyfriend and lover of the first film, did not love “New Moon”. I get the feeling he was not the only “convert”.
Tick...tock...
Posted by Max Alborn, Max Alborn on Nov 27, 2009 @ 12:00 am
