![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Breaking down "Breaking Dawn"
Dec. 7th, 2011 05:54 pmYes, I have now seen a "Twilight"-film. I feel so dirty.
In my defense, I would like it noted on the record that I did not pay for this "pleasure" but that an acquaintance felt strongly enough about me being perverted to shell out the money for the movies.
There are so many things wrong with this
One after the other (and yes, there will be spoilers if you don't know the books/films and if you care).
Much has been said and written about the disturbing subtext of the Saga and the strange ideas that it seems to have about romance and love. I know next to nothing about that because I did (purposefully) not immerse myself in the folklore. But here's how the sex part pans out in "Breaking Dawn Part 1":
They wait until they are married before they decide to consumate their relationship carnally. Fair enough. In the course of their nuptial night (portrayed very restrainedly, obviously) Edward breaks the bed and trashes the room because clearly he is an ultra-strong vampire. Fine, it's been done before, why not? However, as it turns out the next day he has also bruised Bella in several places. "Bruised her", as in "She has a few bruises", as in "This also happens during non-Vampire sex." as in "No big deal really. They will fade soon, Bella is okay with it and actually wants to make more sweet, sweet love to her new hubby." But Edward will have none of it and vows to never have sex with her again (A woman make a decision about how and when she wants to have sex? Are you mad?). So Bella has to try really, really hard and use all her female wiles to get her husband to touch her again in a Barry White way (Eve? Who is that?). In the end she succeeds and.... she gets pregnant! In a way that everybody tells her will break her bones, literally consume and finally kill her! (and she looks it). Jacob (shirt off within the first 30 seconds of the film) also states several times that once the child is born, he will first kill it and then Edward. Edward in turn agrees with this plan and states quite clearly that he could never ever love this (his!) child.
So here a woman finally gets the chance to make a decision about her body/womb/life and she decides to die for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody even invokes the good old gothic cliché of "Well, at least we shall be united in death." Nope, just a horrible pointless death that Lars von Trier would have been proud of.
So that would be two shags, three dead and no fun having been had by anybody.
And these are role models for young people?
Honestly, what the fuck?
Abstinence works, yes, but there are alternatives and not all sex kills.
Some of it can be survived and it also supposed to be quite nice, I have been told.
Of course it doesn't actually end with three deaths but still the message is there. There is more WTF? in the birthing scene but I cannot be bothered to go into this now.
On the other hand it is also quite bizarre just how immobile and expressionless all these angsty characters are all through the film. They are pale, they are angsty, they talk and Bella suffers but beyond that, not much happens. If vampires and werewolves ever stood for animal instincts and/or epic battles, they certainly don't here.
The amount of stuff that wasn't happening did not become fully obvious to me until the very end: In the middle of the credits there is an extra scene starring Michael Sheen playing one of the vampire lords (or something like that). And maybe you could say that he was hamming the role up a wee bit (shockingly unheard of for people playing old and powerful vampires, I know) but my thoughts when witnessing this scene were:
"OMG!!! There is an actor! He is doing something! He is acting! And he looks like he might even be enjoying himself in the process! OMG!!!"
You get the picture? It would not be too bold a claim to state that if I get convinced to see "Breaking dawn, Part II" (this time I want somebody to pay me, though), it will be almost exclusively because I want to see what Michael Sheen does next.
He was literally the best thing in the whole film.
Still, I don't recommend you watch it.
It's also quite irksome to think that there are actually interesting facets to the film and the story but these aspects are the one that are not developed.
A vampire story about restraint? Fab!
A young woman's terror at what might be growing inside her? Not novel but interesting.
The image of the happy couple standing on a pile of corpses forming a grisly wedding cake? It made me laugh in delight. (Extra points for an all-white outfit. John Woo approves.)
But no.
In my defense, I would like it noted on the record that I did not pay for this "pleasure" but that an acquaintance felt strongly enough about me being perverted to shell out the money for the movies.
There are so many things wrong with this
One after the other (and yes, there will be spoilers if you don't know the books/films and if you care).
Much has been said and written about the disturbing subtext of the Saga and the strange ideas that it seems to have about romance and love. I know next to nothing about that because I did (purposefully) not immerse myself in the folklore. But here's how the sex part pans out in "Breaking Dawn Part 1":
They wait until they are married before they decide to consumate their relationship carnally. Fair enough. In the course of their nuptial night (portrayed very restrainedly, obviously) Edward breaks the bed and trashes the room because clearly he is an ultra-strong vampire. Fine, it's been done before, why not? However, as it turns out the next day he has also bruised Bella in several places. "Bruised her", as in "She has a few bruises", as in "This also happens during non-Vampire sex." as in "No big deal really. They will fade soon, Bella is okay with it and actually wants to make more sweet, sweet love to her new hubby." But Edward will have none of it and vows to never have sex with her again (A woman make a decision about how and when she wants to have sex? Are you mad?). So Bella has to try really, really hard and use all her female wiles to get her husband to touch her again in a Barry White way (Eve? Who is that?). In the end she succeeds and.... she gets pregnant! In a way that everybody tells her will break her bones, literally consume and finally kill her! (and she looks it). Jacob (shirt off within the first 30 seconds of the film) also states several times that once the child is born, he will first kill it and then Edward. Edward in turn agrees with this plan and states quite clearly that he could never ever love this (his!) child.
So here a woman finally gets the chance to make a decision about her body/womb/life and she decides to die for no good reason whatsoever. Nobody even invokes the good old gothic cliché of "Well, at least we shall be united in death." Nope, just a horrible pointless death that Lars von Trier would have been proud of.
So that would be two shags, three dead and no fun having been had by anybody.
And these are role models for young people?
Honestly, what the fuck?
Abstinence works, yes, but there are alternatives and not all sex kills.
Some of it can be survived and it also supposed to be quite nice, I have been told.
Of course it doesn't actually end with three deaths but still the message is there. There is more WTF? in the birthing scene but I cannot be bothered to go into this now.
On the other hand it is also quite bizarre just how immobile and expressionless all these angsty characters are all through the film. They are pale, they are angsty, they talk and Bella suffers but beyond that, not much happens. If vampires and werewolves ever stood for animal instincts and/or epic battles, they certainly don't here.
The amount of stuff that wasn't happening did not become fully obvious to me until the very end: In the middle of the credits there is an extra scene starring Michael Sheen playing one of the vampire lords (or something like that). And maybe you could say that he was hamming the role up a wee bit (shockingly unheard of for people playing old and powerful vampires, I know) but my thoughts when witnessing this scene were:
"OMG!!! There is an actor! He is doing something! He is acting! And he looks like he might even be enjoying himself in the process! OMG!!!"
You get the picture? It would not be too bold a claim to state that if I get convinced to see "Breaking dawn, Part II" (this time I want somebody to pay me, though), it will be almost exclusively because I want to see what Michael Sheen does next.
He was literally the best thing in the whole film.
Still, I don't recommend you watch it.
It's also quite irksome to think that there are actually interesting facets to the film and the story but these aspects are the one that are not developed.
A vampire story about restraint? Fab!
A young woman's terror at what might be growing inside her? Not novel but interesting.
The image of the happy couple standing on a pile of corpses forming a grisly wedding cake? It made me laugh in delight. (Extra points for an all-white outfit. John Woo approves.)
But no.
