Dystopian Nightmare, party of two...

Well, I tell ya what, wow. I don't really go to many movies anymore, but I went and saw WALL-E and The Dark Knight over the weekend and was quite pleased with what I found. Depressed and heartbroken, but pleased...

WARNING: The following contains spoilers...

The Dark Knight

I had heard from just about every critic on the planet that The Dark Knight would be spectacular, so I went in with pretty high expectations. For the most part, the film absolutely lived up to those expectations. Heath Ledger's performance was (and I'm not just saying this because he died), as harolded, pretty incredible. His acting ability is beyond reproach, and that coupled with the face-paint and the voice he created for the character really allowed the viewer to forgot it was Heath. The usual problem with getting a big name for a role is that they can't dissolve into that role. The audience spends the whole time being constantly reminded that it's Jack Nicholson (every film he's ever been in ever--what a hack), or Tom Cruise (especially after he became a total loon, it's hard to watch him in anything at all), or Charlize Theron (the film Monster was pretty damn distracting in this regard). But not here. I was so completely taken with the Joker that it hardly even crossed my mind that it was Heath all along. Okay, and the part where he says to Batman, "You complete me," had me rolling in the aisles. Awesome.

Speaking of the Joker, from the perspective of the narrative itself, I found it extremely refreshing to have a villain who was truly menacing. I didn't spend the entire film knowing full well that the good guys would win and that they would triumph with some special something or other... Quite to the contrary, in fact, I spent most of the film thinking to myself, "Ummm, I don't think Batman's gonna win..." I was also pleased to see that even when the good guys sorta won, it was largely a loss as well. That Harvey Dent became a villain, that Batman took the fall, that so many public officials were killed, that Rachel (now played by someone the audience might actually care about--more on that later) was blown up, that the entire city was plunged into mind-blowing terror, and that there's no end in sight hardly seems like a victory, even with the Joker in custody. Clearly, custody can't hold him and things are only about to get worse as the police start hunting Batman. It's not quite a Pyrrhic victory, but it's not exactly a triumphant, Michael Bayish win either. I like that. It makes it more striking and more believable (well, as believable as such a film can be).

And a brief note about Rachel Dawes. Man alive it was nice to have an acutal actress in the role! Someone who was actually convincing as a district attorney! Hats off to Maggie Gyllenhaal. And as I was saying before, it was pretty much absolutely essential that they get a real actress for this part because the audience really had to care that she was killed. Her death serves as the catalyst for Harvey Dent's descent into crazytown, and if the whole audience were cheering that Katie Holmes had been blown up, I just don't think Harvey's progression would have worked. I was actually bummed that they killed her, whereas with the first film, I kept hoping Scarecrow or Ra's Al Ghul or hell, Alfred would kill her off. I'll even take a falling piano!

Speaking of death and dismemberment, holy moly this film is not for kids! I think it speaks volumes to just how screwed up America is that a film with this kind of violence gets a PG-13, but even the most innocuous sex scene or language will get a film an R rating. I'm not a censorship gal, in any regard, but as long as they're applying arbitrary standards, I think this should have absolutely garnered an R. I would much rather kids be exposed to sex and nudity than this kind of violence. Wow. The pencil gag alone was pretty horrifying, but the part where the Joker is going to cut the guy's mouth open was truly disturbing. I'm about as desensitized as it gets and I was still pretty eeked out. It could be that it brought back some much more disturbing images of Pan's Labyrinth, but still... Wow. Not for kids. Aside from it not really being appropriate for young kids, I genuinely don't think kids would enjoy this film. At all. Aside from the fact that the central plot deals with money-laundering (every 10-year-old's favorite subject, I'm sure), this was a dark, menacing, disturbing flick that I think would scare and confuse them more than anything. I bring this up because I saw some ads for Burger King or McDonald's or something that had Batman toys in the kids means and it struck me as so odd. It would be like having a toy tie-in with The Sopranos or Pulp Fiction. It struck me as so odd that they'd be hocking toys for a film that kids aren't even going to enjoy. Very strange.

Anyway, moving on to the next entry in our Dystopian Nightmare duo... and it's not who you'd think...

WALL-E

Yet another superior film with some pretty depressing subject matter. First off, however, the Pixar peeps have really knocked it out of the park with WALL-E. Aside from being as ever-gorgeous as Pixar films always are, the approach to the narrative itself was a spectacularly successful throw-back to silent cinema. Honestly, I doubt the dialouge for the entire film would fill more than a few pages. The first 45 minutes wouldn't fill two lines. Even without the usual narrative force, the film really sucked you in and wouldn't let go. I was completely captivated and hardly noticed the time pass by.

For as charming as WAll-E is, as far as Dystopian nightmares are concerned, it makes The Dark Knight look like a 1950's sitcom. I loved the film WALL-E, but also found it heartbreaking, devastating, and sobering. I think the most jarring part is that we are sadly not that far off. The future of WALL-E is now. The planet is melting, deforestation is destroying the habitat for countless species, and pollution is choking out existence, landfill by landfill. It was with a sardonic smile that I could appreciate the Wal-Martesque description of the Buy 'n' Large (an insanely great title, by the way). It was just completely gut-wrenching to see this Blade Runner type of world hit so very close to home. Indeed, I'd say Blade Runner is the aptest comparison--a comparison you wouldn't think you could even make with an animated Disney/Pixar production about an adorable robot, but there it is.

I also quite enjoyed that the spaceship harboring the sedentary, gelatinous masses that are the remnants of the human race is called the Axiom. So fitting and at the same time, so spaceship name-y. Perfect. Also, the fact that it's a cruise ship with a Lido Deck was so apt and so funny. What better way to get sedentary, useless, masses of people than with a cruise? The all-night buffet is the reason the rest of the world hates us, by the way. And, after hearing the other day that more than 1 in 6 American children and teenagers is classified as clinically obese, it's only a matter of time. The future is now, and that's pretty damn terrifying.

Aside from the more sobering aspects of the plot and premise, WALL-E is at its heart a love story. And a rather remarkably charming love story at that. I was kind of shocked at how heartbreaking and devastating it was when WALL-E might have lost his memory. It was like the air had left the theatre and everyone, eyes welling with tears, was holding on for it to be made all better again. Not an easy feat for any film. On a related note, I really think WALL-E is about the saddest character I've ever seen, and it once again harkens back to just how close we are to this kind of a future. WALL-E is a robot who has been doing the same thing, each and every day, all by himself, and with no attainable goal or end in sight. I don't know how many of you work at an office job in a cubicle, doing the same tasks every single day, but WALL-E's lot in life struck a little too close to home. And the thought of doing that for 700 years is about the dreariest fate I can imagine. WALL-E's situation was presented poignantly and beautifully and that just made it all the more effective and lasting in the mind of the viewer.

The final aspect that drove home the fact that this kind of hell is not too far off was the political approach to the problem. It was just so real it was disturbing. We really have turned into lazy, mindless, apathetic sheep who just want someone else to take care of our problems for us and that is truly pathetic and sad. Man alive, when the president said that they were going to, "Stay the course," I about died. So great. So sad. So... now. The political commentary was powerful, but at the same time, not overwhelming or heavy-handed. It didn't feel like they were even trying to send a message, it was just an organic part of such a sad story. Very well done indeed.

In short, I really loved this movie. It was so beautiful and heart-breaking and yet simultaneously devastating and uplifting. If humanity can just break out of their trance, open their eyes, and actually do something, then real change can occur. That's a pretty big "if", however... I don't have a whole lot of faith in humanity, so I'm sticking to my, "get hit by a bus before I'm 30" contingency plan, but it was really nice to see a viable representation of change.

Oh, one more thing, WALL-E is the second film I saw over the weekend that I don't really think kids will enjoy. Most animated features are intended to entertain children with the secondary objective of hopefully entertaining adults a bit. I think this film has it the other way around (quite delightfully, I might add). The truly funny, witty, and engaging aspects of the film are on an adult level and I can't help but think that kids will be bored or confused by the film. Indeed, the only marring aspect of WALL-E was watching it in a theatre. It's no secret that I don't like children, but having to watch this sweeping, gorgeous epic with little brats all around me asking questions was almost more than I could bear. "Mommy, why did he do that?" "Where are they?" "What is that?" "What's happening" "Kevin's biting me..." Oy! Okay, when I was a child and went to a movie, I was NOT ALLOWED TO TALK... AT ALL! If I got confused, so be it. I don't know what the problem is with parents today, but they seemed to think that that behavior was completley fine. Well, it's NOT FINE! Kids are stupid, I get that, but it doesn't make it okay to talk through the whole movie! It's as though the kids really thought the movie wouldn't tell us why EVE did that or where they're going. Just watch the movie, kiddies, I promise they'll tell us! Oy. Okay, rant over.

Aside from the bad parenting, seeing WALL-E was a really lovely experience. It was a very different experience, too. It was quite nice to get to stretch a different kind of mental acuity while watching. You just don't get to do that very often. Well done, Pixar. Well done.

New Twilight Trailer

My review of New Moon is almost complete, but until then, below is the new teaser trailer for the Twilight movie. I'm honestly thinking that the movies will be a lot better than the books, and that just doesn't happen very often. The girl they got for Bella isn't quite what I had in mind, but the more I see of her the more she seems to be working for me. I'm sure the film will have its cringe-worthy moments, don't get me wrong, but it's looking better than the book so far.

Oh, and the African-American fellow who is playing Laurent is Edi Gathegi, who is the same guy who played Cole on last season of House. The girl playing Victoria was on an episode of Veronica Mars, so even though her hair isn't nearly as fiery as one would hope, I have to like her by association. ;)

I've... been... taaaaaaagged! I'm melting, I'm mellllting!

A = ADVOCATE FOR: The environment, and on a related note, population control. I'm also quite the advocate for TV (obviously)--I'll happily and capably go toe-to-toe with any of those elitist "Oh, I don't watch TV" people who are always dripping with supercilious disdain and an inexplicable superiority complex. Bring it!
B = BEST FEATURE: Oh geez, way to go for the jugular with only the second question... Ummm... I'm a pretty good liar? I'm not sure that's a good thing, but it sure comes in handy.
C = COULDN'T DO WITHOUT: My mother. My tramampoline (intentionally misspelled). TV!!! Lunch on Saturday (ahh, something to look forward to...) :)
D = DREAMS AND DESIRES: Hmmm... As far as actual, attainable dreams and desires are concerned, I'm not I have any... As far as completely implausible, unattainable dreams and desires.... I've always wished I were talented. There's really nothing that I do that's special or unique and there certainly isn't anything I do better than everyone else. I've always wanted to play an instrument or write a novel. Oh, and of course, sing and dance on Broadway (now if only I could sing or dance...)
E = ESSENTIAL ITEM: Well, this kind of goes hand in hand with the "couldn't do without" category, so I'm going to say that a lack of redundancy is an essential item for answering this question in any sort of meaningful way.
F= FAVORITE PAST TIME: Watching TV. Sleeping. Running. Interrogating people with invasive, inappropriate questions... God, I'm sounding more and more pathetic with each passing question.
G = GOOD AT: Not much... We'll go with snark.
H = HAVE NEVER TRIED: Much of anything. I'm not much of a doer... Let's see, something specific... I've uh, never been to medical school.
I = IF I HAD A MILLION DOLLARS: I'd quit my job. I would so quit my job. And never ever get a new one. I'd never have to wake up early again!!! Saints be praised and hallelujah!
J = JUNKIE FOR: Swedish Fish. DVD maratons. A dilectable combination of the two...
K = KINDRED SPIRIT: I'm not totally sure I have one, but there are certainly a few contenders: Beckee (one and the same, she and I), Annie (without whom my Saturdays would completely suck), and Ann (whose coattails are the smoothest ride in town...)
L = LITTLE KNOWN FACT: I love little furniture. I love those little kids' chairs that are just barely big enough for an adult to fit in. They're just more comfortable... I don't know why...
M = MEMORABLE MOMENT: I'm picking this particular moment because for some reason I've remembered it, clear as day, since I was 5 years old. I was in kindergarten and we were in the library (you know, that big sink hole with the steps for you to sit on?) and we had a guest speaker. He was a judge and he was trying to explain to a bunch of 5-year-olds what it means to be prejudicial. He asked us, "Can you kids tell me some reasons that someone might treat someone else differently? Why they might not treat them equally with others?" Well, I chimed in with, "Gender." He kind of balked and looked at me strangely. I was confused and assumed he thought that that wasn't a good answer. So he said, "Which means?" And then I just thought he was stupid and didn't know. So I said, "It's whether you're male or female." And he balked again. Then I thought he was really stupid. Or that he thought that was a bad definition. He looked at me strangely again and then moved on. I was so irked. I just kept thinking to myself, "Hey! That was a good answer! Don't you look at me in that tone of voice!" It wasn't until much much later (we're talking like, years later when I thought of this incident again) that I realized that he didn't think my answer was bad at all, he probably just didn't expect a 5-year-old to come up with "gender," and was thinking more along the lines of "cooties."
N = NEVER AGAIN WILL I: Send an email without checking the address line a few times (or, depending on the content, 10 or 20 times...)
O = OCCASIONAL INDULGENCE: Boston Creme Pie
Q = QUOTE: Michael: "Peter, you're in deep shit. You were supposed to come in on Saturday. What were you doing?" Peter: "Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing, and it was everything that I thought it could be." --Office Space
R = REASON TO SMILE: Puppies. Good stories, fully laden with gossip. Intrigue. Scandal.
S = SORRY ABOUT: Not being a more interesting person. I hate it when people ask me what I did over the weekend and I've got a whole lotta nothing to report.
T = TAG SOME FRIENDS: Beckee and Bree
U = UNINTERESTED IN: Sports (gag...)
V = VERY SCARED OF: Global Warming. Failure. Which means I'm pretty much a constant wreck...
W = WORST HABIT: Procrastination.
X = X MARKS MY IDEAL VACATION SPOT: London
Y = YESTERYEAR DECADE OF CHOICE: I'm not sure what aspect this question is regarding, but I think I'll go with the 1960s. Or the 20s.
Z = ZODIAC SIGN: Virgo

Seriously? Again? Okay, who greased the runway?!

Awesome. For the second year in a row, Miss USA fell flat on her ass in her evening gown during the Miss Universe competition on Sunday. At this point I can only assume that some of the other countries are taking out some well-deserved anti-USA aggression on our contestants. That, or Miss 2008 was so worried about repeating Miss 2007's screw-up, that she was doomed to repeat it. Either way, it's fun to watch pretty girls fall down. At least Miss 2008 didn't bounce... And had the good sense to just own it and not pretend it didn't happen... Poor Miss 2007...

Miss USA 2008 Falls (heh)


Miss USA 2007 Falls (hehehe)


At this rate, I simply cannot wait for what the new Miss South Carolina will have to offer in this year's Miss Teen USA competition.

Who could forget...


Annnd, this is just insanely awesome...


"Everything we teached her..." Solid. Gold.

Casting Call

So, since Stephanie Meyer didn't give us readers a whole lot to work with as far as Bella's appearance is concerned in Twilight, I spent the better part of the novel trying to pick an actress to fill the role (well, at least an actress whose looks I could borrow). The actress chosen for the movie just isn't doing it for me... Henceforth, Ann and I have discussed this to an embarrassing degree and have narrowed the field to the following contenders. (Please bear in mind that ALL these girls are far too attractive to really fit with Meyer's description, but really, who wants to watch an ugly waif in their head as they're reading? I kept making her a lot smarter, funnier, and prettier in my head just to make Edward's adoration seem a bit more plausible... Speaking of whom, I think Cedric Diggory is perfect for the role, so there's nothing to complain about there. Oh, so pretty...)

Anyway, on with the show!

Here is our top contender:

Sarah Drew (of Everwood fame): I have a hard time separating her from the character she played on Everwood, but lookswise, she's the closes to what I had in mind while reading.


A close second in my book would have to be Emmy Rossum. She's much too pretty and elegant for the role, but who wants to have Hortence, the Mule-faced Girl in her head as she reads? Not me.

The rest of these are definitely contenders, but not quite right.

Ginnifer Goodwin
She's not quite waifish enough for the role, but she has a good look.


Alexis Bledel
Oh, Rory. I can't separater Alexis Bledel from Gilmore Girls, I just can't... She'll always be Rory. But, she really does look the part as far as I'm concerned. Aside from being way too pretty...


And, and honorable mention goes to Mischa Barton. Miss Marissa Cooper would be just whiny and pathetic enough to fill the role... No, I still can't quite see it, but she's pretty close. Oh, and speaking of the O.C., Rachel Bilson was on the short list, but we decided she's too pretty and isn't nearly pale enough.

Gee, your blood smells terrific!

Disclaimer: The following review is pretty critical and fairly mocking. I have to preface it with the fact that I did enjoy reading the book, even if it really wasn’t very good. When I take it for what it is, a vampire love story aimed at junior high kids, it really wasn’t that bad either. I can’t hold it to the same standards that I would other books and when I remind myself that the author wasn’t exactly aiming for me, it makes the whole thing seem a lot better. It’s a guilty pleasure. And it sucks you in. And I’m actually pretty interested to see what happens in the next volume, so my critique will invariably loses some of its muster. Also, sadly, this is going to be an insanely long post. It has turned into the longest blog post in the history of the free world. Brace yourselves. It also gets pretty spoilery, so proceed with caution. Anyway…

Wow. Where to begin. So I polished off Twilight in considerably less time than I’d anticipated. It’s rare that one comes across a book where you can read like, 110 pages an hour (and that’s not exactly a compliment…). Don’t get me wrong, it was nice to have a quick, easy read that I could breeze through in just a couple of sittings, but the speed with which one can read it speaks volumes to its lack of depth. I tell ya what, wow. It kept me interested and all, but I could sum up the entire novel in five sentences and not leave anything out. I got to the end and it was like, “Annnnnd, we’re done. Really? We’re done? O-kaaay…” The book wasn’t exactly brimming with the subtlety, sub-text, and incisive character profiles that other authors seem to have to wrestle with (those poor saps). Didn’t anyone tell the other authors out there that you really don’t need to try that hard to write an international best-seller? You fools!

Huh, two paragraph in and I still don’t know where to begin. There’s just so much to discuss, sadly. I guess the most logical place to start is with a gripping discussion of the nature of love and the power it has to overcome all obstacles; the awe-inspiring connection between these two lost souls, who, after searching and searching, finally found each other in a triumphant, exhilarating convergence that…that…!—Oh, who does Stephanie Meyer think she’s kidding. I just read 500 pages of this “love” story and still don’t buy it. When pale, marbly skin and delicious-smelling T-cells are the sole basis for the great love affair of a novel, well, let’s just say it makes the vampires and werewolves pretty damn believable by comparison.

Speaking of delicious-smelling T-cells… Oh, Bella. Ya just didn’t get any better, did you… And, from what I hear, only gets worse in the coming installments. “Yaaaay…” she groaned. Oh, I’ll read them all right, and I’m sure I’ll get just as sucked in and the first, but seriously? Astronomical book sales are no excuse for a crappy heroine... Okay, raise of hands (and I fully expect you to raise your hands, even while sitting at your desks, people): Who all wanted to smack Bella around a little bit every time she pathetically and panickedly pleaded (there was a two-for-one sale on alliteration—even non-words) with Edward, “PUH-LEEEASE DON’T LEAVE ME!!!”?

Hang on, let me count… okay, is that everyone? Erika, you’re with me? Annie? I see you and Ben 2 are on the same page even though he hasn’t read the books (and I can’t say I’m surprised)… No, Anna, you do not get to vote twice (i.e. put Grant’s hand down—he won’t have read them for a least a year). And everyone else? Good. Man alive, what a pathetic, whiny, NEEDY, weak, swoony (i.e. one inclined to swooning, of course), ridiculous, delusion damsel in CONSTANT distress!!! Grow a backbone! Geez, I think she single-handedly moved the women’s movement back a few dozen steps (well, not single-handedly, I mean we have Paris and Lindsay and Britney (Oh, my!)). Okay… maybe I’m being too harsh. I can think of dozens of ways in which she could have been worse… Okay, so none are coming to mind at the moment, but I’m sure they exist… As sure as I am that [with mock earnestness] the immortal, unbreakable love between Bella and Edward will live on… and on… AND ON! [Insert image of me with one hand outstretched the heavens while Celine Dion-esquely pounding the other hand (now fisted) to my chest (face all construed in zealous, inspirational fervor, of course).]

Okay, wow, just had to get that off my chest (it was forced out by my Celine Dion move—ouch…). Now for a real assessment of our narrator. As crazy as she drove me at times, I’ll admit that I didn’t completely hate her. BUT, and it’s in caps for a reason, it feels like the author went to great lengths to make her as unlikable as was humanly possible. It’s to her credit (discredit?) as a mediocre author that I didn’t totally hate her, because it wasn’t for want of effort. It’s one thing to construct a flawed protagonist. Indeed, to have a completely perfect character would also be problematic (see below, subpart “Edward”). Every character needs flaws and sometimes they need a whole lot of flaws (is Dr. House in the house?), but they also need assets, and that is where Bella seems to be seriously lacking. It would be fine for Bella to be plain if it were offset by cunning. It would be fine for her to be klutz if she were also talented in some non-physical way (artistic or something). Even her neediness would be forgivable if she were snarkily entertaining (no seriously, Dr. House?). But for Bella to seriously have nothing going for her, it makes it incredibly difficult to root for her. That the only thing she has in her life, the most important thing in the world to her, the reason she goes on living, is some guy she met a few weeks ago, kind of comes as an annoying slap in the face. The author has imbued our little narrator with no redemptive qualities: no drive, no passion (other than a passion for pasty skin), no inherent skill or talent, and then tries to convince us that the most perfect being ever in creation is in love with her. Boy, those T-cells must be positively aromatic! Geez, even if she just had one single quality that made her in any way interesting, unique, or talented, the reader could latch on to that and form a connection. As is, not only do I not relate to Bella, but I sure as hell don’t want to either!

On that note, I have heard from various people that the author specifically didn’t describe Bella very well because she wanted readers to form their own conception of who she is and be able to relate to her. Well, that backfired. At least for me it did. I spent the bulk of the novel trying to conceptualize someone who could be so completely devoid of appealing qualities and yet somehow be this ravishing creature with whom everyone was utterly enamored. Okay, I can spin the truth better than just about anyone and can convince people of just about anything if I want to, and I still couldn’t make a case here. In my mind, I had to continually make her more cunning and clever and captivating (the alliteration sale goes through Saturday) than the author made her out to be. It was the only way I could piece the story together in a logical way, and let me tell ya, it got kind of exhausting. I just can’t fathom why on earth the author would have made such a choice. I want to think that she’s trying to juxtapose the common banality of human existence with the poetic perfection (buy now!) of the vampires, but by going to such absolutes, the comparison loses its subtlety and the impact rings false and implausible. It isn’t built-up or explored, it’s just thrown right in your face, wasting its effect in one fell swoop. Every mention thereafter is repetitive and in no way illuminating. “Yeah, yeah, we get it. She’s pathetic. He’s perfect. We know.”

As I mentioned earlier, however, somehow, in spite of the author’s tremendous efforts, I didn’t totally hate Bella. I don’t think I’d have cared to finish the novel if I had. I think Bella’s primary redemptive quality is that she’s actually pretty self-aware. She’s as bewildered as the reader as to why Edward would give her a second glance. She seems abundantly aware of the fact that she’s not exactly a winner (more of a “sweet spirit,” if you will) and despite Edward’s near constant assertions that she doesn’t see herself accurately, I think she does. That’s where I had to give her some credit. I still would have greatly preferred she had some quality, some special asset, something that sets her apart from the rest. Other than smelling great. And somehow blocking Edward’s mind-reading. There’s the foundation for a long-lasting attraction… Oy.

Which brings me to subpart Edward. Oh, Edward. Whatever are you thinking? Edward is painted as this infallible, god-like, angel of all things perfection and yet he’s obsessed with Bella? Am I the only one who sees a disconnect there? Do I need to take another vote? Geez, even Bella would be on my team, in that case… I guess Edward isn’t totally perfect when you take into account his taste (heh) in women, but still, author? You couldn’t have given him any flaws? I enjoyed Edward’s character, don’t get me wrong (I mean seriously, having Cedric Diggory taking the reins would make just about any role fairly captivating), but I really think he would have been more interesting if he’d had some short-comings. And no, his struggle not to drain Bella at a moment’s notice doesn’t really count in my opinion. It definitely makes the story more intriguing that he struggles with that, but it’s not really an inherent flaw and he totally overcomes it in no time at all.

I guess my main quibble with Edward’s perfection is a quibble with Stephanie Meyer’s conception of vampire legend overall. As far as the lore behind mythical, incredible beings like vampires, werewolves, and even superheroes is that they have extraordinary gifts, but also extraordinary restrictions. There’s always something that can defeat them. Vampires can’t go out in the daylight, werewolves have the whole moon conundrum to deal with, kryptonite brings down the indestructible hero… But with Stephanie Meyer’s construction, Edward and his fellow vamps really don’t have anything that can destroy them (aside from apparently being torn apart and burned, which, o-kay…). I hate to think that she did this so that it could be his love for Bella that is his only Achilles heel, but I fear that was the intention. I can see where she made this call, wanting his love for her to be more dangerous, more powerful, and more of a litmus test for his commitment, but it also makes Bella seem even more pathetic and unlikable and Edward seem even more inexplicably idiotic. I think it would have been far more interesting to retain some of the vampire lore that existed previously. Meyer’s take on the concept all seems a little too convenient.

I genuinely thought she was retaining the “vampires can’t go out in direct sunlight” concept until the rather unfortunate “date” between Bella and Edward in the clearing… Thicket? Meadow? Whatever. Okay, not only does Edward not burst into flames as all good vampires would, but rather, he glistens? Seriously? That’s why he can’t go out in the sun?! “No, Edward! Don’t come out in the sun! You might… sparkle!!!” The first thing that popped into my head was Tobias when he borrowed Lindsay’s diamond dust. That made me think of Bella as the Ann Veal of the novel and for the rest of the book, every time Edward would declare his love for Bella, I couldn’t help but think, “Her? Is she funny or something?” Which then made me think of George Michael telling his dad about the “Mayonegg” (“Isn’t that cute?” “Is it?”) which would invariably crack me up and, uh, kinda, sorta ruin the “tender” moment. In a good way. ;)

Sadly, visions of Arrested Development were the only things that managed to make the sappy, cheesy, embarrassing professions of love a little less cringe-inducing to read. They were still cringe-inducing, don’t get me wrong, but I could at least distract myself with the Bluth family to ease the pain. Oh, the pain. The would-be love scenes made me feel like I was watching a Lifetime, made for TV movie (The Vampire in My Heart: One Girl’s Tale of Obsession and Sparkles), with the kind of scenes where I simply have to change the channel till it’s over. Yes, I would rather hear all about how “comcastic” my cable service can be rather than watch the awkwardidity. After this actually happened a few times, where I’d be compelled to change the channel to anything and end up on a Comcast commercial, I now lovingly refer to such scenes as “comcastic.” Twilight had more than its fair share of comcastic events, and yet I had no channel to change! I would end up cringing a bit, slightly closing the book, and then peeking at the page with an askance glance to scan for comcastic words and phrases… It worked most of the time, but that whole scene where she wakes up in her bedroom and he’s still there was just unavoidable. Prom as well. Oh, geez, with her standing on his feet! Oh, stop it! You’re embarrassing me! [Sorry, I was re-living it… Post-traumatic stress…] I really just had to power through those scenes… Sheesh.

Okay, I think that’s all the discussion I can muster regarding our two leads. Moving on! Although, let’s face it, there isn’t a whole lot to move on to… Whiny McFallsalot and Sparkles von Pastyface are so entirely, so exclusively focused on that the other characters in the book are hardly explored at all. Truly, some potentially captivating characters get the shaft. I don’t care about Bella’s father, or her mother (a point which makes it kind of hard to fear for her life toward the end—Renee who?), and it feels like I probably should if I’m going to sympathize with Bella’s choices during the third act. Her mother is hardly mentioned at all, other than vague references here and there, and her father is off fishing 80% of the time. In general, that would be fine, but when the whole third act revolves around Bella’s fears for her parents and the bad decisions that fear leads her to, I think it would have been much more successful if the reader really cared about these people. I would have had a much easier time seeing Bella's point of view if I were as concerned for these people as she claimed to be. From all accounts, the only person whose safety she really worries about is Edward, so when she’s pleading to return home to protect Charlie and running off to save her mother, Bella herself is the only one who’s really concerned, and the reader is just along for the ride.

I truly didn’t concern myself with Bella’s parents too much, and was fine with that for the most part, but I genuinely would have liked to have learned more about Edward’s little clan. I have no doubt they’ll be more illuminated in the volumes to come, but that doesn’t excuse ignoring them in volume one. For the most part, each of the vamps got a little bit of back-story and a little bit of action, but it’s the intra-family dynamic that strikes me as the most intriguing and was sadly, the most ignored. I think it would have been poetic and powerful (apparently today’s blog is brought to you by the letter “p”) to really explore Edward’s relationship with his family and show why they’re willing to risk everything for his happiness. It’s alluded to and referenced, but without knowing the other vamps, it smacks of plot exposition rather than poignancy. I think it would have been tremendous to build up their characters and then have their devotion to Edward and their concern for his happiness come across without words. I love moments in a story when it suddenly dawns on you what the characters’ motives are and no explanation is necessary. It’s best when it’s subtle. For me at least, that gives it all the more impact. As Twilight is written, however, the vampires’ motives are nothing more than a plot point, a simple device to move the story along, when they could have been so much more. Quite frankly, although Rosalie is depicted as the ice-queen bitch type, she instantaneously became my favorite character with the one and only sentence she speaks in the entire book, “What is she to me? Why are we risking everything for her sake?” What’s this?! Reason?! Logic?! Finally! All hail, ice queen!!! She only has one line, but it’s the only line in the whole book that actually makes sense. The other vamps seem to be as inexplicably enamored of Bella as Edward is and apparently they see her as inaccurately as well. Somehow Emmett seems to think she’s “diabolical.” Wow. Well, he is a big, brawny lug after all… Incisive insights into others probably isn’t his particular bailiwick. Bella is many things (you know, pathetic, needy, etc.), but “diabolical” she ain’t.

Okay, I’m really going to try to wrap this up. It just keeps getting longer and longer. Oy.

So I’m glad to hear that I’m not the only one who was confused by certain parts of the story. The story about Carlisle’s conversion and whatever happened to Alice were the parts that I was most confused by. Which, unfortunately, were two of the parts I was most interested in. After both descriptions I was hit by a “WTF?!” followed by a “Who did what in the where now?” I don’t know who her editor was, but I think she should invest in someone else. I had to re-read those parts a couple of times and I’m still not sure what exactly happened to Carlisle and where Alice was kept or why being in the dark would cause her not to remember the pain of the transition. On a related note, how were the tracker and Alice involved exactly? He bit her, but when? And where was she when this happened? I’m still not sure. Given that it was kind of an important part of the story, I would think it would have been more thoroughly discussed.

Speaking of which, did the whole ending kind of feel Scooby-Doo-esque to anyone else? I kept thinking, “Yeah, and I would have gotten away with it too if it hadn’t been for you meddling vampires ripping me to shreds and burning my dismembered corpse!” Whoa, that took a turn for the worse… Okay, so maybe not totally Scooby-Doo-esque, but close... The big finish was pretty underwhelming and the whole bit wit the VCR felt a little Lois Duncan-y (ahhh, that takes me back). Also, the 45 minute spiel about how he did it and why. I kept thinking, “Oh, you sly dog! You caught me monologuing!” Way to give the good guys plenty of time to catch you, bud. I don’t know, I guess I would have thought a tracker vampire or whatever he was would have come up with something a bit more aggressive and lot less bait and switchy. It just seemed like a bit of a cop-out. “Haha! It was a recording! Fooooled you!” The one redemptive aspect is that Bella felt genuinely relieved that her mother was safe, even if it meant she would soon die a painful death. That was genuinely endearing and really made for the best Bella expression of the book.

In conclusion (I know, finally, right?), I think the best plan of attack is to take the series for what it is. It’s cheesy and not terribly well-written and maybe that’s okay. For the quick, guilty pleasure that it is, it succeeds. As I finished the book, I wasn't swept up with exhilaration like I generally am after finishing a thick novel. It really felt more like the half-hour was over and I’d have to tune in next week for more wacky adventures. I think the real shame is that it could have been really good. I genuinely think this could have turned out to be a great book, but it falls short. Very short. Not that I’m not gearing up to read volume 2 or anything, but I wish I were spending my time on a pursuit that I knew would be rewarding, captivating, and powerful. There really is something to be said for the fact that the book has taken off like it has. That may not mean it’s a great work of literature, but it’s clearly striking a chord with people, and that’s not an easy feat. I guess I was just expecting a little more… which is likely why I’m being so critical.

Here’s hoping the next few books are a little deeper and little less comcastic. I'm not going to count my delicious T-cells until they've hatched... or something...

Overall Grade (taking into account that’s it’s aimed at tweens): C+

Lady and the Vamp

Yes, I started reading the cheesy vampire novels. I’m just going to own it. Me: “Hi, my name is Lacy, and I’m reading the Twilight series.” Crowd of alcoholics, drug addicts, and felons: “Hi, Lacy.” So here’s the story… The reasons I began reading Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight series are four-fold: 1) I have no spine. I’m a giver-inner to peer pressure and eventually crumbled. Hand in hand with my lack of spine is my lack of resolve—it’s easier to cave than to fight it; and 2) I hate, hate, HATE feeling left out of a conversation. It’s a sizable part of why I watch as much TV as I do. I can’t stand it when I hear people excitedly discussing the ins and outs of anything and having nothing to contribute and no opinion to offer; 3) I approached the Harry Potter series with similar apprehension and very pleasantly surprised (a feat which I’m not expecting to such a degree this time around); and 4) It’s summer. TV, my true love, is at camp or something for the next couple months and I need a meaningless summer fling to distract me while it’s gone.

Henceforth, I began reading Twilight the other day, and not without a considerable amount of prejudice, I might add. Everyone who “recommended” the book to me began with a sheepish qualifier as they hesitantly inquired if I’d read them [insert image of person glancing around for unwanted company and staring at shoes]. Excuses ranged from, “I was on a plane to Ghana and had nothing else to read!” to “I was deathly ill with the flu and my sister’s copy was sitting on the coffee table… the only reading material within reach…” and everything in between. I have yet to run into anyone who will cop to reading the books without fully admitting their embarrassment at indulging such a cheesy, guilty pleasure. As such, I had a pretty good idea of what I was getting in to, and was reassured that while they present little more than a quick (if undeniably crack-like in its addictive properties) read that didn’t take any thought at all. Even Twilight devotees fully admit that they aren’t great novels by any means, but they apparently suck you in (no pun intended). I’ve been needing an easy read, so I caved.

I started reading a couple of days ago, and with only a couple of bus rides worth of reading time under my belt, I’m already about 150 pages in. It is indeed, a remarkably quick read and it does suck you in. I have to keep reminding myself that it is aimed at 13-year-olds, however, or I’d be more annoyed and aghast at its quality. Whereas Harry Potter far surpassed the expectations of what a children’s/young adult book usually has to offer, Twilight is barely meeting those expectations period.

First and foremost, my primary quibble is with the first-person narration. It’s generally not my favorite narrative point-of-view and has the potential to fail miserably. In order for a first-person narrative to succeed, the lead character needs to be compelling, interesting, and as far as my list is concerned, clever. Bella Swan doesn’t strike me as swimming in any of those qualities and it makes me question the author’s choice of a 17-year-old narrator. In my experience, 17-year-olds are pretty un-interesting on the whole, so the decision to give the narrative reins to a high school kid is definitely taking a risk. It takes a truly talented author with a very specific purpose to full off first person narration effectively.

If it is integral to the story that the main character’s point of view be the reader’s window to the world, then first-person narration would be the most logical and likely most effective narrative structure. But, yet again, if you’re dealing with a compelling lead character, that’s all fine and dandy. If Holden Caulfield is at the wheel, by all means. Bella Swan is no Holden Caulfield, however, and the first person narration isn’t working as effectively as I would hope. I think it would have served the story’s purpose and untied the hands of the author to large extent to write in third-person limited omniscient, much like Harry Potter. That’s my favorite narrative point of view. It allows for the thoughts and feelings of the main character to the guiding principle of the story and the reader’s interaction with that story, but allows for plot exposition and narrative descriptions to more elegantly intertwine with the main character’s experience. As the novel has progressed, I’ve noticed that the author has decided to ignore the fact that a 17-year-old kid is narrating in the interest of better descriptions and more elaborate explanations. From a critical perspective, it’s both good and bad. It’s a very good thing because I genuinely want to know what’s going on around her and want it delivered eloquently, but it’s a bad thing in that it takes the reader out of the first-person narration. For example, in chapter 6, the terrain is described thusly:

• “The water was dark gray, even in the sunlight, white-capped and heaving to the gray, rocky shore. Islands rose out of the steel harbor waters with sheer cliff sides, reaching to uneven summits, and crowned with austere, soaring firs.”

It’s a fine description for a third-person narrative, but really? 17-year-old Bella? That’s how you’d describe the shore? Uh, sure… It’s not that no character would describe it as such, but the build-up of Bella’s character doesn’t warrant such a description from her point-of view. It was distracting to have that kind of description and then be confronted with “I” in the next paragraph. Oh yeah, Bella is telling the story… I would forget from paragraph to paragraph and it was annoying, even if it did allow for a better assessment of the surroundings than Bella would ever relate. The exposition almost invariably comes across as clunky or out-of-character. Not a good rubric to employ…

Anyway, that said, Stephanie Meyer, in my opinion, has really limited the work by allowing Bella Swan to tell the story in her own words (well, not always her words). I have been vacillating between two theories in this regard. Either Stephanie Meyer recognized that fact that she’s not the most experienced and talented author out there and decided to have a 17-year-old high school student tell the tale so that the quality of the work would match her own narrative abilities, or, Stephanie Meyer is a tremendously skilled writer who has so engrossed herself in the character of a 17-year-old that her characterization is flawless. I think I’m going to go ahead and settle on the former.

Admittedly, I’m only a third of the way through the novel, but this blog post is primarily concerned with my first impressions. Impression #1: Teenagers aren’t clever or interesting and I certainly wouldn’t trust one of them with my narrative. It’s not that Bella Swan is completely unlikable, it’s just that the average, typical 17-year-old doesn’t have the most profound or pronounced point of view. I think the most irritating aspect is that Bella (and the author, as it were) seems to think that she’s clever, when she’s genuinely not. Bella’s comparisons are juvenile, even though Bella is presented as an old-soul who can captivate the brooding and infinitely more compelling Edward. I just can’t see it. Bella just doesn’t bring a lot to the table. I’m having a hard time buying it that all these guys are completely enamored of her and am annoyed that Edward gives her a second glance. I’m hoping that dissipates as I soldier into the rest of the book, but so far, I wouldn’t date her… and we all know I'm easy...

One of the first instances when this struck me, feeling like I was watching a really bad audition for a musical, was in the very first chapter. When confronted with the statement, “You don’t look very tan,” Bella retorts, “My mother is part albino.” Not clever. At all. But, I thought to myself, this is an unremarkable teenager we’re dealing with here, maybe that’s just how she is and I’ll have to live with it. Maybe she’s trying to be funny and is supposed to fail. Maybe this serves a purpose. Yeah, not so much. I was rather crest-fallen by the following paragraph that stated, “He studied my face apprehensively, and I sighed. It looked like clouds and a sense of humor didn’t mix. A few months of this and I’d forget how to use sarcasm.” Groan. Oh, sweetie… That wasn’t clever. Disturbingly and disappointingly, this leads me to believe that not only does Bella think she’s clever and that she knows how to use sarcasm to great effect, but so does the author. That’s even worse than a character who simply isn’t clever to begin with. So annoying. Bella’s (well, the author’s) comparisons, observations, and quips almost invariably fall flat even when it’s clear that it’s supposed to be clever.

Would kids find her clever, I have to ask myself? I genuinely don’t think they would. Further, and I hate to keep comparing things to Harry Potter, but I’m certainly not the first, J.K. Rowling was genuinely, captivatingly, and unerringly witty on a level that all ages could appreciate. I think that’s what any so-called young adult or children’s work should strive for. It’s the same principle that makes Pixar animation so great. When something is genuinely clever, it works on all levels.

My final initial quibble with the Twilight series comes down to a genre issue. The truly skilled writer works to re-invent a genre in exhilarating, suspenseful, and unpredictable ways. That doesn’t seem to be the case here or even the intent. This whole story more than smacks of Buffy the Vampire Slayer… It borrows concepts (whether intentionally or unintentionally) wholesale from other works and makes no effort to re-invent them. While Buffy took a concept and turned it on its ear, Twilight plays to all the pre-conceived notions of forbidden love that have held true for ages. At the center of each story, the new girl in town falls for the brooding vampire who has sworn-off human prey and acts as protector and guardian to the heroine. Buffy, however, is clever, and is unique, taking the helpless damsel of yore and turning her into a kick-ass fighter of evil. Bella, on the other hand, is the hapless ingénue that has graced the pages of countless romances from countless other genres. That “mortal girl falls for a vampire (or some other such immortal, potentially evil being)” is in and of itself, a genre, means it has likely been played out and I would have expected more from Twilight than I’m getting. Sigh.

This has turned into much more of an epic than I ever imagine it would. Anyway, derisive jabs and critical barbs aside, the Twilight series really does offer the reader a quick escape into a world that at the very least is more interesting than the one we sit through every day. It’s not as “literary crack-esque” as Harry Potter, but it’s entertaining enough to suck you in and not let go.

I’m genuinely interested to see how things turn out. I’ll cop to it... with a few mitigating qualifiers… If anyone else asks, I was trapped under something heavy, shall we say, a sofa, and only had the Twilight series within reach. To keep my sanity as I was completely pinned (well, all but my left arm--my readin’ arm fortunately), I was forced to read… and read and read. As long as there are absolutely no follow-up questions, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

Okay, for those of you unfamiliar with the Whedonverse, this may come across as a little odd, but believe me, with Joss Whedon at the helm and Nathan Fillion and Neil Patrick Harris starring (AND singing), it promises to be completely and geek-tastically awesome! It will be airing in three parts and only online, premiering July 15th. Seriously, you have to check it out. If you loved the Buffy musical, you're sure to love this. Ahhh! I'm so excited! Yay Joss!

UPDATE: Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog will air in three parts, each roughly 14 minutes long. The first will begin airing on http://www.drhorrible.com/ on July 15th, then the second part will air on July 17th and the final part will air on July 19th. They will only run through July 20th, so seize the opportunity while you have the chance!


Teaser from Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog on Vimeo.