Posted tagged ‘Billie Burke’

Twilight Saga Eclipse – Embarrassing – Something To Learn From

July 1, 2010

Embarrassed Pattinson

I’m putting aside all this discussion of constitutional issues and the Second Amendment today and getting to something really important:  the new cinematic installment of the Twilight Saga – Eclipse.

And I’ll stop right here.  I can’t, with a straight face, call it really important.  With a straight face, all I can call it is really terrible.

The most fun part, in fact. was standing in line in the theater with two twenty-somethings who kept talking about how much they hoped that they would not run into anyone they knew, and which particular person they would least want to run into.

At the end of the movie, we all three walked away very very fast.

The problem, aside from idiotic dialogue, and visuals that, on individual shots, make the actors look incapacitated by angst or glum boredom, and group shots, as if they are on a fashion photo shoot, is that its makers disdain the basic material.  Yes, the books are goofy; yes, the writer is a Mormon; yes, a big feature in the plot is the maintenance of chastity before marriage; and yes, Edward is just too “good” to be true—yes, these factors are all pretty dumb and very uncool (as is a lot of the Twilight crowd),  but they are the givens; a big part of what made the books popular.

One can feel the director, David Slade, the script writer, Melissa Rosenberg, strain against these very uncool, unhip, givens; they seem embarrassed to be connected to a movie promoting them  (just as we, hip New Yorkers, were embarrassed to see it.)  (Although Slade and Rosenberg are, I’m sure, eager enough to make money from it.)

The exceptions here are perhaps Taylor Lautner who seems, sorry, clueless enough, not to mind the story, and still too thrilled by the fact that they kept him in to be disdainful of anything, and Billie Burke, who is just a good professional actor.  Okay, okay—I’m not going to blame Pattinson (who is given truly awful lines, and very little leeway to smile charmingly) or Stewart either.  It’s the Director and Screenwriter, who seem like the true teenagers here, mortified by their parent, i.e. their base storyline.

But a movie that doesn’t like itself is just not likeable.   To make a stupid, uncool, story work, you have to just go with the stupid, uncool flow, not try for a stupid cool flow.  (Otherwise, it just doesn’t make internal sense.)

Bringing this around to something that may be of more interest to followers of this blog:  it really is important, in pursuing any kind of artistic endeavor, to make a kind of peace with it, to let go of that edge of embarrassment that sometimes clouds one’s work and commitment.  If you find your work truly embarrassing (not because of modesty, but because of something deeper—because the work is it is too personal, too openly reflective of your goofy side, or the opposite, too blatantly commercial and not reflective of your goofy side), it will be very difficult for you to really push it to any kind of happy fruition.

New Moon – Seen and Ponderous

November 21, 2009

New Moon has now been seen and pondered.  This is easy to do as it really is pretty ponderous.  (Yes, Bella is depressed, nearly catatonic,  but do we have to be?)

The music is particularly unfortunate.

As are the costumes.  Whoever came up with Edward’s robe with the Voluturi, which looks, at times, as if he were a Las Vegas crooner in drag, must be the same person who came up with Carlyle’s weird pale sweater set with the ascot type muffler.  Oh, and also the knickery vest shirt and shepherdess dress outfit.  (Don’t want to spoil this one.) And  Edward in the blue silk pajama top.  Unfortunate.)

The actors do the best job they can (which is not bad.)  Their eyebrows and lips work very hard to convey depth beyond the sometimes goofy script.  The actual lines don’t help much;  these feel endless and redundant in the Jacob/Bella scenes; clipped and overly-compressed in those with Edward/Bella.  (You can see which team I’m on.)

Also, though the movie promised a lot of Robert Pattinson (in all the ghostly Edward images), there really is not enough.  What’s especially lacking is any exposition of why Bella is so crazy about Edward.  Pattinson’s looks and innate charisma go a long way, but, if you had not read the books and/or were not already fascinated by Edward, it would be hard to understand Bella’s ongoing loyalty.  Their relationship is simply not fleshed out—where are all the “sleepovers”?   While both Kristen Stewart and Pattinson are more openly emotional in this movie, the script keeps them in a narrow channel.   (Bella’s relationship with her father, played by the wonderful Billy Burke, has more nuance.)

Partly this is a problem of a sequel.  Several sequences seem like much ado about nothing, simply because the background story is not really introduced.  (The repeated screaming in the sleep, the skipping chase scene with Victoria.)

Perhaps that unfortunate sound track is supposed to set a greater emotional context, but it mainly conveys that someone in the sound crew loves soupy scales.  (It’s like elevator music that actually goes up and down.)

I felt sorry for Rachel LeFevre (Victoria), who was much more angular, red, and menacing in this film (and will be replaced for the next.)

The audience very much appreciated Jacob’s bulked-up shoulders; Pattinson’s every entrance was greeted with glee.  An amazing number of men were in the audience;  men towed along by girl friends.  These guys were generally very well-behaved, although in the movie’s moments of greatest longing, loss, and/or romantic reconciliation, distinct guffaws echoed through the aisles.

In short, a bit of a disappointment, and yet, well….I may just like it better second time through.