I haven't followed the books. Before today I had no reason at all to care about Twilight. But then I read the New York Times review and I think I need to take a stand, even before having seen the film.
Basically, the Times insulted my sense of morality. It started like this: Vampires kill people and suck their blood, but really it's all a metaphor for having sex. The vampire is probably conflicted, doesn't want to suck blood, but he feels an uncontrollable urge, and eventually he gives in. So if drinking blood is like having sex, then Twilight is the vampire movie for the chastity crowd.
OK. Simple enough. (And as I explained this to Hilary, she said, "Well yeah, the vampire's a vegetarian." Oh. Is the metaphor really that well understood? I had never thought about it. And plus, she tells me that the author is LDS. Oh. Am I really that disconnected?) But then the reviewer said that the movie was totally lacking precisely because the vampire doesn't kill the girl or have sex with her.
The reviewer didn't use those exact words, but that's what she was saying. She was saying, "Teenagers have sex. That's what teenagers do. Why make a movie about teenagers who don't have sex?"
Maybe I'm putting words in her mouth, but I really think that's the message she was trying to convey. Maybe one of you can tell me what you think.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/21/movies/21twil.html
Friday, November 21, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)