They Literally Sparkle. SPARKLE!

Okay, here's the deal: I kind of hate Twilight. To be fair, I never really thought I'd like it, but having sat through the first book, I can honestly affirm that it's not worth the hype.

Here's what I dislike about it:

1. The protagonist never has to work for a damn thing. NEVER. She is automatically (inexplicably) popular with everyone at her new school, including the mysterious hottest boy alive (or is he?!), and she can get pretty much anything she wants with remarkably little effort. Everything just kind of happens to her, which not only makes me bored with her, but does not advance the plot in any substantial way. Also, she's kind of annoying. As in, she treats everyone/everything she encounters with disdain automatically, and never seems to treat anything with proper respect as a default. I'm okay with an unlikable protagonist. It's interesting, and can be incredibly refreshing. But, I honestly think we're supposed to like her. What's worse, we're supposed to identify with her.

2. To go along with point #1, which is really like 3 points all together, the actual conflict of the book happens 375 pages in. HOLY CRAP, THAT'S BAD. The first 3/4 was total fluff. And not even believable fluff. And, on top of that, the conflict doesn't last for more than three or four chapters. Conflict is essential in driving both character and plot, so you can tell what I mean when I say that the vast majority of the story had zero conflict. Minor instances of confrontation (both physical and psychological) are taken care of almost immediately, and rarely by the protagonist herself. Blah.

3. Okay, this is the biggest one. For me, at least. The book pretty much has Victorian ideals. Edward isn't particularly charming, and worse, has completely antiquated values that are supposed to be seen as romantic and loving. Bella Swan has just thrust a new generation of women back into the 1800s, by being a supposedly smart, independent girl (inexplicably) falling in love with a jerkish, uptight, domineering guy. I don't care that he's randomly in love with you--you don't need to be protected. PROTECTED. GOD. It really doesn't help that the character of Edward is as cold as his body temperature. You know it's a bad sign when the only words to describe Edward are adjectives like "beautiful," "Adonis-like," and "statuesque." The last one I meant to mean like an actual statue. He's actually described to be hard as stone and just as cold. Not attractive. But apt in describing his personality. Good job, Bella, for telling a new generation of women that in order to be happy, they need to devote everything they have to one beautiful guy, regardless of any actual personality match, and let him tell them what to do/ protect them, oh those gentle waifs.

4. The vampires are so freakin' lame. For example, did you know that the true reason that vampires can't go out in the sunlight is because they sparkle. Like glitter in the sun. DUDE. What the hell? And they don't seem to be particularly threatening (at least so far in the series). Edward always talks about the drawbacks of being a vampire which, so far, seem to be the painful death/rebirth. Seriously? My favorite monster deserves so much better than that.

So that's my deal. I agree with one particular review I read where the reviewer said that it basically read like fluffy fanfiction. Totally. I mean, I do understand the appeal, and that's why I'm so upset--it had potential. Vampire love stories/romantic versions of vampires/ism are totally my bread and butter. I read Anne Rice's books (before she became born-again and renounced poor Lestat) and loved them. Lestat was an amazingly romantic/tragic vampire figure, with a teenage girl following. But at least those were well-written, regardless of soft-core pornographic influences.

[ETA: Perhaps the later books are deeper/better, but I don't care to find out. The actual reviews seem to indicate that they get worse as the series goes on, and I'll go along with that.]

I have to say, reading this after watching Buffy (I KNOW, I PROMISED NOT TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE, BUT THIS IS RELEVANT. I'll stop yelling now...) makes me kind of uncomfortable. Buffy was a phenomenal role model for girls, even when she got all doe-eyed over attractive vampire men; this is because she always stayed true to herself and fought for her voice. It didn't matter that she is physically strong and "the chosen one," because we can identify with her personality--which is that of a very teenage girl. She goes through pain and heartache and dealing with jackass vampire boyfriends, but faces it head on and comes out stronger for it. I love Buffy for that. Bella Swan does nothing for me. I sincerely fear for girls who think that Bella Swan is a more relatable character than Buffy Summers.

To end this rant to end all rants, here is one webcomic that NAILS my thoughts on the book: Twilight Sucks.

At the Very Least, I'd Have to Read Adorno

Gather round, all ye readers, for I have discovered something amazing.

In my attempts to better understand the mechanics of the movie-going experience, I have rediscovered my interest in camp. Or rather, a need to understand why people like camp, as I'm not sure I do anymore. Sure, it's fun, but I also find glorying in campiness to be easy and a little too spiteful for a movie-watching experience. Since I miss research (seriously, I DO) and am frequently bored and brain dead at work, I decided to go into the classic UChicago databases to see if I can find any academic materials relating to the analysis of camp in movies. Well, I found some. Not too many, but enough to sate me.

However, what I did discover was the wonderful periodical entitled Cinema Journal. I know, I know, big whoop. Film students everywhere are probably cringing at my newfound joy. I don't care! Two of my favorite interests--analysis and films--together in one source! It's very academic, and probably extremely annoying to analyze film in this way, but I freakin' love it. Listen to what some of the articles are (by the way, I found these by searching "James Bond"): Birth Traumas: Parturition and Horror in "Rosemary's Baby", Feminist Enterprise? "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and the Occupation of Femininity, The Poetics of Horror: More than Meets the Eye, "Too Close for Comfort": "American Beauty" and the Incest Motif, The Metafictional Hitchcock: The Experience of Viewing and the Viewing of Experience in "Rear Window" and "Psycho" and the list goes on and on.

[ETA: I had three well thought out paragraphs after this point, but Blogger decided to have one of its spells, as I tried to publish the post, and lost them (a strange thing, because it had been saving my work regularly, even after I'd written this much). So, the remaining paragraphs have been hastily written through gritted teeth and muttered expletives. Just thought you should know what I do for you people.]

Now I know this sort of analysis often guts the movie-going experience, and seems overly pretentious to even the most annoying academics. Many times, because people often act snarky towards less, um, involved movies, in order to show off how clever they are (another reason why camp isn't so cool anymore). There is a reason why nobody wants to watch movies with U of C kids (And yeah, I know I'm being slightly hypocritical here. Shut up.). Oftentimes, I like to shut out the analytic side of my brain and enjoy a movie simply for the plot presented to me. But, I like knowing that the option is available, if I want to indulge my nerdy leanings. It's funny, but I was never into over-analysis in most of my UChicago classes; however, give me a good movie to watch and I turn into "That Kid." I know I do. I know I annoy people. I don't care. And I know that people can read waaaay too much into movies, but isn't that what entertainment is really about? I mean the fact that you can, at times, enjoy a really good movie on two different levels (at least) is just cool.

Good movies/tv shows/web series are enjoyable no matter how you see them. And, agree or disagree with the points of the above articles, but they are sure to provide interesting food for thought. Movies don't have to be brainless entertainment! Like I've ranted about before, whenever Hollywood makes us work to connect complicated points by presenting them in an entirely entertaining manner, I say that's a damn good movie. DAMN. GOOD.

It's a shame I'm no expert--Cinema Journal seems to favor individuals who can actually articulate using examples from literature, history, cinema classics etc., as opposed to my style, which is more based in gut reactions. I'd love to get into a medium where I can wax poetic on what I find interesting about some movies, and how I read into their many, many onion layers.

...

Wait a second...