I did not attend last night's Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I screening. I was invited, but since I'm married with two kids, I try to reserve press screenings for the important stuff, like tonight's screening of The Muppets and the deluge of Oscar-bait movies I actually want to see (Young Adult next week, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy the week after). So while I don't loathe the series like a lot of other people do, I'd still rather catch the latest entry on my own time, instead of plunging into rush hour traffic just 36 hours or so prior to opening morning. So while other critics (mostly the 'geek crowd' oddly enough) are openly discussing the overt weirdness that is present both in the original Breaking Dawn book and the 'first part' of its film adaptation, the above graduation speech always stuck out for me. The reason is simple: in about 75 seconds, Ana Kendrick seemingly condemns the entire narrative arc of Bella Swan. Marrying the first serious boyfriend you get right out of high school? "Bad". Not going to college? "Bad". Not making any effort while you're young to see the world and/or have various adventures before settling down? "Bad." I've had conversations with a friend of mine about whether or not Stephenie Meyer actually endorses the narrative arc that Bella Swan undergoes during the four-novel series, as well as whether or not she wanted Edward Cullen and Bella to end up together at the end at all.
Since I have not read the fourth novel or yet seen the fourth movie, I can only speculate based on second-hand sources and a Wikipedia plot summary. But might the final (and somewhat-disliked) series finale be in fact a rebuttal of sorts, a 'Hey, here's what you wanted, now look how it would actually go down!" novel in the vein of Thomas Harris's Hannibal? Ridley Scott's film adaptation completely missed or ignored the extended-middle-finger satire of the flawed original source material, but the book was somewhat an implicit criticism of all the readers and moviegoers who viewed Hannibal Lecter as some kind of admirable anti-hero after the film version of The Silence of the Lambs came out in 1991 (something that is more about the media than the film itself, I'd argue). The third film, with any number of characters trying to talk Bella out of spending her life with Edward, makes a strong case by virtue of making their arguments intelligent and valid. Along with the overt sympathy for Bella's father Charlie from the first film up until now (those who want the Twilight Saga to be 'more of a horror franchise' should try watching them from Charlie's point of view), the scene above remains the strongest bit of evidence that maybe the Twilight Saga isn't as simple as it appears, that maybe it exists as an implicit criticism of not only the arc of Bella Swan, but those readers and moviegoers who find Bella's journey something admirable and/or something worth emulating.
This is all pure speculation, but I am interested to hear any feedback from those who are more familiar with the series, and especially the original novels. Am I merely making this up, or are the moments contained in the film pointing to a less-than-obvious interpretation of the series?
Scott Mendelson
Since I have not read the fourth novel or yet seen the fourth movie, I can only speculate based on second-hand sources and a Wikipedia plot summary. But might the final (and somewhat-disliked) series finale be in fact a rebuttal of sorts, a 'Hey, here's what you wanted, now look how it would actually go down!" novel in the vein of Thomas Harris's Hannibal? Ridley Scott's film adaptation completely missed or ignored the extended-middle-finger satire of the flawed original source material, but the book was somewhat an implicit criticism of all the readers and moviegoers who viewed Hannibal Lecter as some kind of admirable anti-hero after the film version of The Silence of the Lambs came out in 1991 (something that is more about the media than the film itself, I'd argue). The third film, with any number of characters trying to talk Bella out of spending her life with Edward, makes a strong case by virtue of making their arguments intelligent and valid. Along with the overt sympathy for Bella's father Charlie from the first film up until now (those who want the Twilight Saga to be 'more of a horror franchise' should try watching them from Charlie's point of view), the scene above remains the strongest bit of evidence that maybe the Twilight Saga isn't as simple as it appears, that maybe it exists as an implicit criticism of not only the arc of Bella Swan, but those readers and moviegoers who find Bella's journey something admirable and/or something worth emulating.
This is all pure speculation, but I am interested to hear any feedback from those who are more familiar with the series, and especially the original novels. Am I merely making this up, or are the moments contained in the film pointing to a less-than-obvious interpretation of the series?
Scott Mendelson
