As I See It

I initially began reading the Twilight series for two reasons: I was suspicious of its merits and I wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I feel very strongly about judging things for oneself, not developing opinions or damning another’s creativity without at least checking it out for yourself. Now, I am not saying you have to watch, read, or experience everything out there, quite the opposite really. I’m just saying, don’t judge based on someone else’s judgements. That said, I am going to now reveal my insights on a series of books that are enthralling teenage girls around the world. A series that I read for myself. This is meant merely for educational purposes.

The Twilight series spans four novels. It centers around the character Bella Swan, who, at the beginning of the series is seventeen-years-old and a junior in high school. Bella is both stubborn and reserved, as well as being a walking accident-waiting-to-happen. As the story begins she is moving to a town called Forks in northern Washington to live with her Police Chief father, Charlie. Upon enrolling in school Bella meets and falls in love with the mysterious, “vegetarian” vampire Edward. Edward and his “family” are compassionate vampires, feeding on animals rather than humans. As the plot moves along, Bella is pulled deeper into the supernatural world with Edward and those around him. 

The Twilight series is romantic, suspenseful and full of action and drama. In other words, every teenager’s fantasy. On the one hand, as an adult woman, I was engrossed. I read the books as fun, frothy, emotionally complex entertainment. They are not great literature and they do not try to be. They are a guilty pleasure. They are dark and full of subtly sexy tension and conflict. However, for a teenager, these novels would hold a very different connotation and intrigue.

Edward and Bella are irrevocably passionate star crossed lovers. They are more than a little obsessed with one another; they believe that they cannot live without the other. While the writer, Stephenie Meyer, illustrates their rather genuine love affair with great poignance and passion, I feel it would be hard to sell a teenage girl that this is not how love is meant to be or how it rarely is. And therein lies my first qualm about these novels. The books are about young love, young love that ends up lasting an eternity. It revolves around Edward and Bella’s passion for one another and the odds that are stacked against them. This particular story line would appeal to teenagers natural inclination towards believing that lust and infatuation are the same as love. 

I am not saying that the central characters to the story do not love one another, in fact, I felt deeply that they did(however unbalanced they were in it), but I also have concerns that teens who read these books will feel the same way and try to emulate it. I do not believe it is the author’s job to protect against that, that would compromise her creativity. But I believe that any parent who would consider to let their teen read these books would be wise to check it out for themselves.

Bella is seventeen when the story begins, and as it comes to a close, she is almost nineteen. In the later books the obvious and palpable sexual chemistry the two main characters have is both blush-worthy and inherently mature themed. And, once again, as an adult married woman I could chuckle and smile, if embarrassed a little myself. So, I guess, what it boils down to for me is that teens already have the ideas, why condone it in a novel? Edward is a vampire and he watches Bella sleep at night, how many kids do you think read that and left their bedroom window open for their boyfriend?

One positive on the teen-sex front in the Twilight series is that Bella and Edward do not actually have sex, at least, not outside of marriage. I’ll let you deduce what I mean by that. However the final novel is fairly graphic and mature, and not just where sex is concerned. There is vivid imagery that is disconcerting and dark, as well as plot twists that were unnerving even to me. 

Something I found interesting was the difference in Meyer’s vampires and the traditional ones of Anne Rice or even Buffy the Vampire Slayer. In Buffy in particular the vampires do not retain their former personalities or the essence of their humanity, they do not remain who they once were when they are changed. Also in Buffy, the only vampire who does not feed on human blood is Angel, and only because he was cursed with a soul. The vampires in Twilight remain very much themselves after they are transformed. They are more like immortal beings whose diet just happens to be blood than demon-possessed creatures. However, the majority of the vampire population is not good or humane. 

Overall, I enjoyed the books on a personal level. There is a certain intrigue and mystery about them that appealed to my sensibilities. It is hard not to get sucked in to the drama. It is hard not to feel attached to the characters and want them to survive. It is well written and vivid. I would recommend them for an older teen audience, but not for the squeamish.

There are aspects, like in anything, that I had to kind of gloss over. I would not say they represent anything Godly, not at all, but supernatural and entertaining definitely. They are about commitment, passion, and love. I do not believe that they are meant to be anything more than fun and romantic. They are very well marketed to their desired audience, an audience more interested in extreme emotions than life lessons. I liked them, but was torn by my interest in them and read them with a guarded heart. So, take my opinion as that opinion, but I hope this sheds light on a series that pretty soon almost every teenager in America will have read. And maybe, not every teen should.

This weekend, as rain and wind blew in from Ike down south, I went to go see a movie that was expected to be clever and funny. I sometimes like a movie in spite of myself . Often I feel moved or compelled to enjoy a film just because I have decided before hand that I am going to like it. I had a glimmer of this as I sat in my seat to view the Coen brother’s new film, Burn After Reading. I had an expectation going in of what the movie would be like, of how amused I would be or how intrigued I would feel. However, those expectations were soured as the reality of the movie became clear.

It wasn’t one aspect of the movie, so much, that turned me off, but the composite of a bunch of things put together. To begin with, you will hear a lot of positive feedback about this movie(for the most part critics love it), but I am not convinced that is because of the film itself, but rather that every Coen Brother’s movie of recent history has been raved and well-received. The movie follows, bizarrely at times, the intertwining lives of a group of narcissistic federal workers as they collide with unexpected black mailers from a local gym. I, frankly, am not 100% sure what the movie was even about half the time. Was is about the ridiculousness of the American government? Did it mean to poke fun at those we trust with our National Security? Was it merely a statement on how ignorance can lead to disaster? These are questions I will never know the answer to, because, honestly, I’m not sure the filmmakers know.

John Malkovich plays the angry, drunken Osborne Cox, who is at the middle of this ever-swirling pot of insane, selfish characters. The film begins with him being fired, cursing his institution, and leaving to write his “memoirs”. His wife, a harsh and severe doctor, chastises him and tells her lover(played by George Clooney) she wants out. Clooney, a sex addicted perv, seems intent on one thing only: having his cake and eating it too. Through a series of unfortunate events(that hardly make sense), two employees at Hardbodies gym(Frances McDormand and Brad Pitt) get a hold of a disk containing what they ridiculously assume is valuable intelligence belonging to Osborne Cox. McDormand’s character, Linda Litzke, is single, obsessed with getting plastic surgery, and frankly, a little slutty. She and Chad(this would be Pitt, who is my only bright spot in the whole movie) begin to foolishly blackmail Cox. All goes straight to hell and thus supposed genius is born.

I won’t tell you how the film comes together, or why I lost interest towards the end. Should you decide to see the movie, I’d hate to ruin it for you. Be prepared for shocking, unnecessary violence. I usually think that violence is more effective when you don’t necessarily see it, but the Coen Brother’s do not agree with me, and make it very clear in this film. Besides that, the film is filled with cursing to rival most. It annoys me how supposedly intelligent, educated people, seem to have such a limited vocabulary. But beyond those two elements there are strange, surprising sexual scenarios that may have disturbed me more than the language and violence combined.

Maybe it was my own fault that I did not enjoy this film. Maybe I should have known or expected it to present the way that it did. But, I have a tendency to still want cinema to be, I don’t know, clever, pretty, saying something real. I would say NO to Burn After Reading, not because it was like watching the toilet bowl flush, but because it’s not a real movie. It is pointless, empty, violent, and frankly, not even that funny. Brad Pitt is humorous, engaging, and sympathetic, but he is not in the movie long enough to make up for everything else. Don’t go see it, but if you do, be warned: you view at your own risk.

I had heard a lot of buzz about Woody Allen’s new comedy Vicky Cristina Barcelona, namely a certain kissing scene that takes place in the film. This annoyed me somewhat. Why is it that the media can only focus on something if it’s salacious? I was hopeful, despite the focus that had been placed on the sex in the movie, that since I have generally enjoyed the Woody Allen comedies I have seen in the past this would be no different. And, for better or worse, it wasn’t. But before I begin I must say, I am not recommending this film to you. I couldn’t do that in good conscience. However, I will tell you why I enjoyed it and why it was an achievement for the director.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is a romanticized, unrealistic, sexy romp about two best friends who are both trying to find themselves in Barcelona one summer. Vicky, is a conservative, grounded grad student (played vulnerably by Rebecca Hall) who seems an odd match to the wild and idealistic Cristina (typecast with Scarlett Johanssen). They meet a passionate artist, who is also an unabashed charmer, named Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem portrays him with a great deal of humor) and they set off into a whirlwind of new experiences. The film really just meanders through their lives, giving no more weight to the romance between Cristina and Juan Antonio, as it does for Vicky’s conflictions with her own situation and choices. The dynamic in the film takes off when Juan Antonio’s unstable ex-wife Maria Elena (played winningly by Penelope Cruz, who I have never liked before) comes on the scene and all-manner chaos is unleashed.

All of this is both fun and slightly ridiculous at the same time, but one thing is for sure, you find yourself being completely engrossed in this fantasy world of avant-garde intellectuals that Allen creates. The film is carried along with a loud, dry narration that reminds more of a documentary than a feature film. It was a bold move, and could have stuck out like a sore thumb, had Allen not completely committed to it. At one point, Cristina is very drunk and gets sick, the whole scene is shot with a slightly fuzzy resolution that makes you feel off-kilter with the drunken Cristina. That was one of the most enjoyable things about the movie, being captured by the technique of the filmmaker. Woody Allen, for all his neurosis and eccentricities, remains an innovator in this industry.

The performances of the actors are vibrant and full of life. As I said before, newcomer Rebecca Hall, is funny and vulnerable, portraying her sense of confusion with a refreshing candor. While I always think Scarlett Johanssen is appealing to watch, hers was the only performance that bored me. It felt very much like what I have seen from her before, even reminiscent of her performance in her first Woody Allen movie (and a fascinating movie it was) Match Point. I wondered why she had taken a role so like what she has already played and mastered previously. Truly, if she doesn’t take something different soon, she will run the risk of always being the bombshell.

The two characters with the greatest challenge were Juan Antonio and Maria Elena. Javier Bardem is hilarious with his cheesy orations on love and life, all the while really just trying to get someone (anyone) into bed. I have always found him a little terrifying, but in this movie he is non-threatening, even human. Pennelope Cruz, who I have always felt looked like a field-mouse, was captivating as the tortured artist-bohemian who was always trying to kill herself or someone else. She curses, she’s brilliant and disturbed, and throughout the film she teeters on the edge of insanity. Maybe it helped that I don’t like her, because I was surprised when her performance charmed me.

Which brings me to the one thing that everyone is talking about, which I think is the least interesting thing about the whole movie. There is a scene in which Penelope Cruz and Scarlett Johnassen kiss. Yep. I closed my husband’s eyes, but really, only to annoy him. It was 10 seconds of screen time and would have been forgotten completely by me had it not been so well publicized. And, really, that’s all I have to say about it. Don’t go see this movie for this scene and don’t disregard it because of it. I only mention it because you should know it’s there so you can make an informed decision for yourself.

Ultimately, I would say yes to Vicky Cristina Barcelona. But I will not say you must see it or you will be sorry you didn’t. It’s classic Woody Allen in a beautiful setting. It really is an actors film and the cast sparkled. The movie just tells a story, there is no great message or incredible life lesson found in it. It’s romantic fluff with great dialog. The subject matter is wordly and mature-themed, but I am not someone who needs to agree with a perspective to enjoy the view. It is what it is. And it is enjoyable.

Stiller, Downey, Jr., Black

First off, I apologize that the first movie I am reviewing is Tropic Thunder. I blame Hollywood’s inability to produce good material. Please, please don’t judge me.

So, for better or worse, here it is…

There is little distinction between Ben Stiller’s new action-comedy Tropic Thunder and what I put in my trash can. Friday evening, after an awesome dinner at a local Thai restaurant (where my husband and I indulged in the most incredible Coconut Ice Cream in the North Texas area),we headed off to the movie, hoping in earnest that it would not fall short. We were not so lucky.

I had heard some things floating around in cyberspace about protesting from several human rights groups in regards to a particular stream of humor in the film. Now, I must say, I rarely pay attention to accusations regarding the brand of humor or political statement featured in a film. I am someone who stands in firm opposition against censorship, in any form. I do not agree with a lot of what is out there (in film or printed in the media, and a lot of modern fiction is purely fluff), but that does not take away the civil right of the author or filmmaker to present it to the world. After all, that is where our freedom to choose not to support it comes in. (What would I rant about were that taken away?) So, I approached Tropic Thunder with optimism, and I was greatly disappointed.

The film chronicles the bungled mess that is the filming of a Vietnam war movie called, shockingly, Tropic Thunder. After running into budget problems and poor camaraderie between the actors, the director, Damien Cockburn (an obvious play on words there), sets off into the jungle with his lead actors, the films special effects coordinator (played humorously by Danny McBride) and the “Vietnam Vet” Four Leaf Tayback (a dirty, drunk Nick Nolte). All manner of chaos ensues and thus the plot moves along. The plot isn’t where the movie’s issues come in, however. It is both clever and inventive how they set up the conflict, and all the actors are in their respective elements. However, Jack Black, with his buzzed blond hair and protruding belly (not to mention an insane heroine addiction) steals the show, without crossing the line.

I had heard that Tom Cruise made a striking cameo in the movie, and that was 100% true. Cruise plays Les Grossman, and to say he was foul mouthed would be a gross understatement. Cruise spews out more f-bombs than rest of the actors in the film combined (and keep in mind, this movie is Rated R for some violence and drug content, but primarily for pervasive language). He plays a hairy, balding, and disgustingly wealthy film mogul who is both ruthless and cunning, as well as foolish and superficial; but somehow he wins. I found myself both amused and annoyed by his tirades. Strangely, somehow, I was reminded of why, at one time, I actually enjoyed watching Tom Cruise. There was an element of the ridiculous about his performance that poked fun at the bizarre, controlling facade he portrays in the media. I truly, despite my greatest efforts to feel otherwise, was glad he was in the movie.

Along with Cruise, there were many other cameo’s and surprise appearances throughout the film, which did little more than show off how many friends Ben Stiller actually has in the industry. However, I did enjoy Matthew McConaughey’s appearance as the slightly dim-witted, bushy haired agent to Stiller’s character Tugg Speedman. Anytime I am surprised my Matthew McConaughey is OK with me. A lot of the movie felt contrived, however, and I found myself at times feeling like I was trying to digest stale bread. It was occasionally fresh, but mostly, it carried the trademark Stiller humor and nervous twitch which comes with it. I did an equal amount of laughing as rolling my eyes and shaking my head.

Now, to the primary reason I would have to say “No” to Tropic Thunder. All of Jack Black’s goofy, uninhibited humor,  and no amount of Matthew McConaughey or a re-vamped Tom Cruise, could remove the reproach that entered from almost the first frame of the film. Ben Stiller’s character made a movie entitled “Simple Jack” about a mentally challenged man slightly reminiscent of Lennie from Of Mice and Men. Had it just been the brief reference to the movie and a few jokes, maybe that would have been OK, but this particular storyline (accompanied by numerous insensitive references to mentally challenged individuals, and an incredibly offensive moment in which Stiller and Downey, Jr trade insults about it) threads throughout the entire movie. There’s a lot that I can ignore, or even find the humor in , that is off-color or even offensive; this is not one of those things. The theater was full and there was a noticeable tension that arose every time this particular storyline came back around. It was highly alienating, causing me to feel removed from my immersion in the movie frequently.

So, in conclusion, if you were considering seeing Tropic Thunder, think again. For the few highlights, and the humor that it does have, it carries with it a great deal of unecessary insensitivity. I would choose not to support the filmmakers decision to poke fun at that particular group of individuals, and therefore, greatly alienating a significant part of their audience that does not find that particular brand of humor amusing. So, as far as I’m concerned, this one, is a NO.