'Tis Now Midnight

 Approximately ten years ago, the manuscript for Midnight Sun (you know, Twilight from Edward's perspective) was leaked online, so Stephenie Meyer chose to put it up for free on her website so that fans wouldn't get tempted to go look up the leaked copy. She always said that someday she would finish and publish it, someday when everyone had forgotten about it. And that time ended up being in 2020. Ten years ago, I would not have pictured putting on my mask before going into the store to get my copy of the book. But there you have it; you never know what the future holds--unless you're Alice, that is.

The first half of this book is of course quite familiar since it's material we've seen before. What does it feel like, then, to revisit something from your own past? Are we all still interested in what once held our attention. I can speak only for myself and I suppose the answer is mainly yes. Twilight was enjoyable because it portrayed the feeling of falling in love for the first time and Midnight Sun (particularly the first half) is the same way. All those little daily life flourishes and moments.

The thing is, though, back in 2008 in my senior year of high school when I first read these books I had never been in love. Reading about first love when it's something to look forward to versus when it is something in your past, something accompanied by first heartbreak, is something entirely different and much more painful. I found I could only handle small doses of reading. You could say that I wasn't as much into the fairy tale (which is not at all to say that I don't believe in love--but I do agree that fiction tends to overemphasize first love as the love).

I admit that I had forgotten that the leaked/originally-released manuscript was incomplete. At first I thought I was just reading scenes that had been extended since then (which I think was the case, too, right?), but then I of course eventually realized I was reading completely new sections of the book. While much of this book is fascinating to read because it does give you insight into what Edward was experiencing or why he acted a certain way at particular moments or how such and such unfolded that Bella didn't even know about, some of the material in here was superfluous. I really didn't need the extended dialogue of Edward asking Bella about her favorite movies and music and all that--yes, that's something you want to do when you're falling for someone in real life, but isn't something that added to the reading of their story. 

By the time you're in the last third of this book, though, it shifts. This is the part of the story where Edward and Bella spend a lot of time apart, so you are seeing entirely different things than what you see in Twilight. Alice in action is great and their car stealing and freeway speeding was entertaining. And we finally got an explanation for why James only noticed Bella at the baseball game when the breeze went by; that always seemed like a plot inconsistency what with all the explanations about a vampire's sense of smell. And the last third was also great because I didn't have to sit through all the falling in love stuff anymore.

The Twilight series is well-arranged as far as the different stages of Bella (innocence, initiation, chaos, and resolution played out in four books). Edward's story plays out a little differently, though, especially because he has Alice showing him all of these possible versions of the story. That's why the first half or so of this book is his falling in love story. But after that, he's in a different headspace than Bella is. He's already planning to leave her life someday. So that's why Midnight Sun feels like two books or maybe one and a half books in one. His pacing is different from hers. 

But that doesn't really matter, does it? This book is still nice to finally have. It was entertaining to run down memory lane and to get some new angles and scenes. 

Have you read Midnight Sun yet? What did you think?

Life and Death

That sounds like a philosophical title, like I'm just about to go into an exploration of the human condition, the meaning of life and the inevitability of death and all that. But no, it isn't that at all. I'm sure most of you (to whom such a thing would be of any interest) already heard last fall about the tenth anniversary edition of Twilight that Stephenie Meyer released on us all without any forewarning. Instead of just writing a foreword, she explains, she decided to gender swap a couple of chapters of the book and ended up doing the whole thing . . . which is now titled Life and Death and is included together with Twilight (you flip the book over to begin Life and Death at the "back").

If you have been uncertain on whether or not to read this superfluous, silly little thing that I think none of us were sure what to make of when it came out, let me suggest that you do read it (if, that is, you have any curiosity--and if you don't you're probably not still reading, anyway). If nothing else, it is . . . interesting. Now I will go into more details--which you may or may not want to read if you haven't read Life and Death yet.

As the book begins, it's hard to keep track of the characters. I was constantly rearranging them in my head, trying to remember that this character is supposed to be that character and that when it says "he" here it really means "she" in Twilight. Actually quite a mess to keep track of because instead of just reading the story like new, I was trying to fit it in to the images I already had of the characters and the story. I got more used to it as it went along, though. (Every character is gender swapped except for Charlie and Renee and the Volturi--even the cab driver towards the end of the book is a woman instead of a man.)

Most of the lines and content are the same. A few of the phrases are changed, some words here and there. Sometimes I recognized better wording and sometimes I kind of missed the carefree style and tone of Twilight (the writing style, that is: Bella herself isn't, of course, always carefree throughout). Where things are most different are where there are (subtle or greater) changes in the plot--except for the ending (which I'll get to later), these pretty much all have to do with the change in gender.

Bella is switched out for Beau and once you get used to the idea that your narrator is a he instead of a she, the transition is pretty seamless, more so than I'd expected. It's a very fluid change--for the most part. The small changes are sometimes funny, like when Beau finishes all the leftover lasagna so that there isn't any more for Charlie when he gets home (there was with Bella). The saddest change is the whole Port Angeles ordeal: for such a danger to happen to a teenage boy, guns and a bit of a backstory have to be involved. But for Bella, just being a teenage girl on a dark street was enough to put her in danger. Sad but true (pretty much--Beau's threat could've just been people beating him up for his wallet, but it had to be more dire in order to quite match Bella's situation and therefore stir up the same rage in Edythe as it did for Edward).

The fact that Carine (Carlisle) had to work as a nurse instead of a doctor for many years is also a little inevitably disappointing--because of course it has to be that way. I don't get, though, why there is no mention of the Civil War with Jessamine (Jasper): she could have been one of the women who pretended to be a man and enlisted in the army--I'm kind of disappointed that that wasn't in there because I think war was always such a big part of Jasper's life even before he became a vampire. But it's a pretty small thing.

Edward translates pretty easily into Edythe, too. This really helps emphasize, as Stephenie had hoped, the fact that Bella is the human in the face of the supernatural world versus the girl who needs to be helped by a guy. Edythe is stronger than Beau in exactly the same way . . . and gender has nothing to do with it. The only thing is that Edythe and Beau relate to each other just a little bit differently, even when the conversations are the same. Beau takes the lead in certain ways just a little bit more--and not just him feeling like he has to open the door for her. I suppose this could be a remnant of the fact that Edythe is from an era when women were trained to be more subservient to men, so she naturally lets him take the more dominant role (where appropriate--because, of course, she still yells at him and tells him what to do in certain other situations).

But Beau is less, hmm, submissive than Bella. Bella can have quite a stubborn temper, so submissive seems like the wrong word. But I think you know what I mean. Stephenie says that Beau doesn't have the "chip on her shoulder" that Bella has. I kind of wonder why. It makes Bella's quieter, more unsure of herself, hesitant personality seem more of a negative portrayal of a girl because that personality trait doesn't carry over into Beau. There are quiet, unsure boys, too (though, of course, the stereotype is for girls to be this way more than boys). But I think there is another reason. This book ends differently from Twilight. This book sees the end of Beau and Edythe's story, sees it come to resolution the way that Bella and Edward only did at the end of Breaking Dawn. Bella needed the time of four books to learn about herself. Beau, with only one book, has less time to work through his issues. So he kind of has to start off with less issues than Bella had. (Although I still don't know why a boy has to be OCD in order to care about organizing the kitchen, making dinner, and doing laundry--can't he just be neat and responsible like Bella was when she did these same things?)

It's interesting to see how the end of this book plays out with the "what if" of Joss (James) halfway wins and Beau turns into a vampire now instead of later. Strangely, it feels so wrong--not just because it's different from the ending of Twilight. It's wrong because he didn't have time to say goodbye to his other life, time to realize why he wanted a new life, time even to simply fall in love with Edythe in more detail (honestly, they only had a few days to get to know each other). So it's an imperfect ending, and yet that's what's interesting about it. It kind of takes you full circle and makes you realize, after you've been watching these other characters, what it was that worked so well about Twilight. The four books really allowed for the four stages in Bella's personal journey in a way that only one book can't quite cover.

So Life and Death was interesting. It's an interesting look at gender (although the claim is that gender makes no difference, what's interesting are the moments, however small, that have to change because of gender). It's a strange way to revisit a familiar story. And there's no pressure involved: it isn't really a real book, after all. The fact that it's included in the back of Twilight shows that it's just a novelty, just something fun to take a look at. And the "new" ending means that we need have no fear of sequels, either.

Does Twilight Complete Dracula's Aim?

I don't know how this thought never occurred to me before; it's so simple and obvious. Maybe it has been talked of before; maybe it hasn't. Sometimes I think distance from a subject can let you see broad concepts that you might have glanced over before when you were thinking more (or more often) about the subject.

As I was watering the garden this morning, I was thinking about how some people have accused (or simply stated this fact) Twilight and other fiction like it of defanging vampires and other supernatural beings (like werewolves)--let's just call them monsters for the sake of simplicity. I guess these people preferred stories involving monsters to be scary and therefore for those monsters to remain monsters in the traditional sense rather than be redefined as something else. Then my thoughts started drifting toward Dracula and what the vampires are like in that book.

And then it all came on me in a rush. What? Dracula was written coming out of the Victorian era, and while you can look at it as simply the good humans fighting the evil vampires, that isn't really what it's about. It's responding to the concepts of prejudice, hypocrisy, etc. that the Victorian era was becoming known for: it's trying to show that the people are just attacking the vampires, calling them evil, and essentially doing the same things that they're saying make the vampires evil--they're saying vampires must be eradicated because these things and yet they are the ones doing these things. So you could kind of say it's a book about how people need to stop judging others, look at their own lives, and basically all get along.

That sounds familiar. It's exactly what one of the themes in Twilight is (also in Harry Potter, except instead of vampires and humans there are magical and non-magical people--werewolves and house-elves--and in lots of other fiction right now). Basically there are just different types of people, who all make choices about what they do. Some are good, some are not, some make bad choices even when they're trying not to. But it has nothing to do with the outer idea of what is first perceived by others about them: as Bella puts it in New Moon, "It isn't what you are, it's what you do." And, Bram Stoker himself aside, isn't that exactly the type of thing Dracula would have wanted to see in fiction in the future? For it to be about the facts of who people are and what they decide to do, not about certain groupings of people who can't get over their pre-conceived ideas of one another.

Granted, I know that Dracula is a relatively young book and there were plenty of other supernatural stories before it came around, but it is considered one of the major vampire books. So I find this connection very interesting.

New Moon Graphic Novel Vol. 1

It's only my fourth graphic novel, right? (Not counting The Invention of Hugo Cabret.) The others were the two volumes for Twilight and Jane Eyre. What Young Kim did with Stephenie Meyer's text in the those first two volumes pleased me; simply put, Volume 1 of New Moon does the same.

I read the first few pages casually, then set the book down for a day or two, not feeling much need to hurry back to it. But when I did, I found myself sitting with it until I'd finished. It's of course quick to flip through, being a graphic novel. But it wasn't the book's speed that made me finish: it was a repeat of that feeling I'd had before. It was a refresher of what made me like this story to begin with. While dialogue is shortened, there are still enough of my favorite quotes and scenes to re-immerse myself in this world, while also introducing a new format.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there was less color in this book; I can't double check because I don't have the others with me at the moment. Yet there were still a couple of scenes that stood out, artistry-wise: Bella's dreams and the scene with Laurent. I'll be getting Volume 2 when it comes out.

Belle, Jane, and Bella

I did intend this post to simply be about Jane Eyre and Twilight, but somehow Beauty and the Beast is coming in, as well. And, no, you're not allowed to criticize me for this post: I'm still feeling cool about how well my thesis on Charlotte Brontë went on Friday, so I consider myself plenty knowledgeable on the subject.

Jane Eyre is, in many ways, a Beauty and the Beast story--considering the skeleton of each story, that is. The heroine goes to a dark, large house in some type of subservient way. The grumpy master of the house seems intimidating on the exterior, but the heroine is able to see beyond that and beyond his past (which she eventually discovers in more detail) and the two fall in love and he is restored to a previous state of goodness. I'm not as surprised to see how similar, in a kind of Gothic way, the two stories are considering that Jane Eyre was published in 1847 and Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve's version of the fairy tale came out (in French) in 1740--that's a hundred years in between, but they're still in a similar time period (as opposed to the difference between 1847 and 1547 or 1647, for instance).

Now we bring in Twilight. What has sometimes bothered me about how people talk about this book (when they say that it's childish and portrays a creepy or abusive or whatever relationship that sets a bad example) is that people seem to forget what that silly group of books considered "the classics" is like. Twilight is very much like Jane Eyre. Stephenie Meyer has of course said she modeled it somewhat around Pride and Prejudice (as New Moon is to Romeo and Juliet and Eclipse is to Wuthering Heights). But his name is, after all, Edward Cullen--like Edward Rochester. And although I know Stephenie Meyer had already liked this name on its own merit, Bella sounds suspiciously like Belle.

There isn't a good comparison for Thornfield, but Bella does go to the isolated location of Forks like Jane goes to the isolated location of Thornfield. First-impression-wise, Edward is a grumpy character--like the modeled-after-the-Byronic-hero Rochester. But he and Bella watch each other like Jane and Rochester watch each other. Both couples sort of bond over frank speech that involves criticizing each other; when they talk, they form their own brands of conversation.

Plot-wise, both do have some issues of power struggle. Jane and Rochester (in my interpretation of the book) resolve this issue through the rebirth that each one experiences during their time apart (after Jane discovers Bertha's existence). Time apart? Well, well, that sounds just like New Moon, doesn't it? Bella and Edward also have to spend some time apart (although it does mean something a little different for their relationship) and some time evaluating their own identities before they can fully enter a relationship as equals.

Beauty and the Beast comes back in with that idea of looking past the exterior of a person. This is something Belle, Jane, and Bella all are able to do. The theme isn't about allowing yourself to be caught in a possessive relationship or going after someone who isn't like you. It's about realizing that people are who they choose to be, not a pre-determined someone they were meant to be.

So that's why I think it's perfectly natural that I, English Lit. major that I am, should like Twilight. It's written on the wings of the historical books that I love.

Jane and "Master"

At one point, I was doing a mental comparison of Jane Eyre's use of "master" and Jeannie's from I Dream of Jeannie. While it's sort of a slave term, neither one obeys all the commands of her "master." Jeannie uses the word ironically and as a word of endearment, sometimes almost possession. Jane uses it also as an endearment term and as a way of deriving comfort from someone stronger than herself.

But I completely overlooked another "master," most surprisingly because this time it is also accompanied by another Jane. You'll recall that the Jane of Twilight calls Aro "master" quite frequently. I think many of us are amused by Jane and Aro's relationship: it's somewhere between father/daughter and master/slave. Part of the reason for this, I'm sure, is because Jane is so young: although she has been around for many, many years she is still a child. So I think Aro has taken advantage of her youngness to gain her loyalty. Unlike Jane Eyre and Jeannie, Jane uses "master" in its fullest sense: she does not disobey Aro's orders according to her own will. His will is her will.

Be the differences as they are, I still think it is no coincidence that the character so frequently using the word "master" is named Jane.

Breaking Into the Dawn

My over a week's delay in posting my thoughts about Breaking Dawn Part 2 has not, in fact, been because I was unhappy over the movie and needed time to get my thoughts straight. I quite liked the movie and already watched it a second time the Tuesday after it came out. I would have wanted to post that night, but it was a long day. Then Wednesday was pumpkin pie baking day, Thursday was Thanksgiving, Friday was Christmas decorating, and the weekend has been catching up on school work (which I am still not done with--oh, this terribly busy semester). So if I am brief, it is because I have other things that need doing. (In fact, briefness may be just as well: I really shouldn't let these posts get too long, should I?) The advantage is that I shouldn't be spoiling anyone on the movie by now; but just in case, you must click to read on.

Pre-Breaking Dawn Thoughts

Before I realized that I would literally not have the time to reread Breaking Dawn before the movie, I decided that, for once, I would skip this step. I've decided that this would only make me more focused on how the movie is different from the book, and that probably isn't the best approach for material like this. Instead, I'll be looking for two things in the movie: tone and characters. I'm sure I will still miss lines and scenes, but I will at least try and keep my "analysis" broad enough that it is focused on the right things.

As far as character, we must obviously see a transformation in Bella, physically and in terms of her maternal instincts. Also along these lines, Edward gets his fatherly side, and he and Jacob become closer in their brotherhood of sorts that began in the first part of the book. Moving further along, Alice becomes a central figure again with her visions and her departure with Jasper. Then comes the tricky part of characterizing so many new faces, though costumes will help this greatly. All these new faces are at least going to look different.

Tone goes through quite a journey--a journey that will probably make this a movie more friendly to audiences than Part 1. First comes the sense of fitting in, then the parenthood, and then the fears. Fears about Renesmee's future, the Volturi, the situation with Charlie, the mass coming together of so many vampires, etc. Then there is the feeling of power in unity, the mental preparedness that allows the Cullens to convince the Volturi. On this note, I'm wondering if that final scene will end up more action-based; it would seem strange to me if it does since Stephenie has talked about how the chess scene book cover represents that it wasn't that kind of battle.

Two other things I am very curious about are Renesmee and Nahuel. What we have seen of Renesmee so far has been wonderful, so I'm getting the idea that these two very important characters will come across just right.

I'll be seeing the movie (early) Friday morning. I make no promises about posting my reaction on Friday: I tend to like to wait until I've watched twice, but I don't know if or when that will be. We'll see.

The Immortal Cullen & Tuck Families

It was back in sixth grade that my class read Tuck Everlasting by Natalie Babbitt--we also watched the movie version and talked in typical fashion about the changes. Now, back in sixth grade, I couldn't quite fawn over the ending to this story. (Now shall commence a plot summary.) The character, Winnie Foster, meets the Tuck family, who are all immortal from drinking water from a certain spring. Naturally, she and the younger son, Jesse, fall for each other; when the Tucks leave, Jesse gives her some of the water so that, if she chooses, she can drink it in three years when she is his age and come find them. But she doesn't: the Tuck parents come by years later and find her gravestone, which says that she lived a long and happy life and got married and had children. "Good girl" is, I believe, what the father says about her, though with sadness because they'll have to tell Jesse.

The idea is that Winnie chose to live a natural life, right? That's difficult for a romantic to come to terms with; my sixth grade self couldn't.

But are you reminded of another story that ends in the opposite way? Twilight is very similar--in certain ways. Bella meets the immortal Cullen family, falls in mutual love with the youngest son, and eventually has the opportunity to share in that immortality. Is this spitting on Tuck Everlasting's message (not directly, I mean)?

Maybe. But you know I can never see things that simply, so here is what I see instead.

The Tuck family could have been almost like a dream in terms of their effect on Winnie; she lived with them and learned from them and loved them, but they were apart from the rest of her life. Once she had grown through her time with them (a little Alice in Wonderland-like, maybe?), it was time for her to throw out that immortal water, smile, and live her life. For Bella, on the other hand, the Cullens do represent what her life is becoming. She is at that point in her life where change must come: as the teenage years transition from living with parents to living independently in one's self, few things stay the same. So Bella's adoption into that family is her adoption into the new stage of her life, the one she had always been meant for. All the Renesmee/motherhood stuff is the proof that she, unlike Winnie would have if she had gone with Jesse, was living a full life.

For Twilight to actually be the polar opposite of Tuck Everlasting, it would have to be a fantasy. But does it really have a fantasy ending? Take away the labels (vampire, immortal, etc.) and it's just a love story: girl and guy from different backgrounds meet, fall in love, have complications in their relationship, get married, start a family. Though we don't hear that story, isn't that exactly what happened to Winnie?

Winnie did die, though, unlike Bella, who likely won't. But Winnie would have been immortal by an abnormality--the spring's water isn't presented positively. Contrarily, the vampires of Twilight are just a part of nature, another way for "people" to exist.

Oh, and one more thing: don't take this post too seriously. I fear I may have either complicated the matter too much or completely ignored the message of Tuck Everlasting. But it's an interesting comparison, right?

Meet Renesmee . . .

Yesterday, Twilight fans got to see a couple of new pictures (for Entertainment Weekly covers) of Renesmee. You can view them at this link.

The casting of Renesmee was one of those big moments; I remember my excitement/anxiousness as I examined Mackenzie Foy's picture after she was cast, concluding that, yes, she looked like she could be possibly even perfect for the role. We all know Renesmee is crucial: with all the, er, strange stuff that happens in Breaking Dawn, the likeability of Renesmee is what makes it all work.

Most people have been having something of the same reaction to these new pictures as to reading about Renesmee. It's sort of magical, you could say. It's also absolutely hilarious to see how much she resembles her onscreen parents--Mackenzie Foy probably looks more like Rob and Kristen than I look like my parents. So it doesn't really matter that she will likely, towards the end of the movie, be older than Renesmee; it just matters that she works for the part. Renesmee's age is singular, anyway.

In fact, I was surprised yesterday to find myself getting really excited for the movie. I've been working for the past several months on separating my love for the books from my small (or so I tell myself) interest in the movies. But now I'm looking forward to November again.

Literary Trends & Conversations

Bear in mind, during this post, what I have said before about the similarity between the current supernatural trend and the Gothic. But this time, I want to focus on the how of the similar content in these two periods.

This past semester, one of my classes read about half of a book called Pamela, following up with sections from Anti-Pamela and Shamela. As you can tell, the second two books were parodies of the first; they were two of many more such books. Such things became literary conversations of sorts. It seems dull to look back on piles of the same basic plot, but the concept is understandable. We have the same type of thing now in YouTube form, where you can search for a particular parody and come up with dozens of results. But do we also have it in book form?

I think so, in a way. Let's come back to the supernatural trend (and we can include fantasy in this). There are the big titles everyone or most everyone knows. But there are also the piles of "similar" books. Most of them aren't as good or as original (though not necessarily), and some in the overall bunch parody parts of others (or at least respond to them). Let me take my friend Twilight for instance. Though it appears to have helped launch the trend because of how timing worked out, it wasn't really the first of its kind. And there are responses even stated outright in the text. Bella tries to remember what fiction has said about vampires and compare it to her observations, etc. The reader, looking in, does something similar. Twilight is a different world from previous vampire fiction. It therefore takes on a different focus and a different theme, even while including a few of the same elements within its framework.

It's in these little differences that the big changes often happen. Back in the eighteenth to nineteenth century, texts shifted (though with rather similar plot lines) from showing essentially trapped and powerless women to independent figures. Now, very much through parodies, we seem to be shifting the supernatural from something to be feared or to be cautious of to something that analogizes aspects of our real lives. (It always has done that, true, but it's a bit different now, isn't it?) So in Twilight, it isn't about certain characters being vampires; it's about what they choose to do with who they happen to be. It's a similar sort of thing in Harry Potter.

And I do hope I didn't ramble or stray overly much in this post.

Breaking Dawn Movie Companion

I can't believe it took me so long to get to this book. Although I love behind the scenes on movies, a good amount of the movies I'm interested in don't actually get movie companions, so when they do, I snatch them up. Yet here I am barely going over this book in April when it came out in December.

I was expecting a sort of downhill surge to happen on this book, with it ending up the weakest of the Twilight movie companions. At 140-150 pages or so, it certainly isn't long or terribly extensive. And after my pessimistic post about the movie itself, we all know the movie addressed in the book wasn't my favorite.

But, short or not, this movie companion happily doesn't have too much fluff. It starts off in the usual sort of way with some plot exposition and has bits interspersed throughout, but mostly keeps to explaining how things were done, mainly by giving quotes from the crew. So there are some nice technical and artistic explanations, along with a few brief making-of stories. Some of my favorites were about the filming of the wedding ceremony and how they achieved Bella's emaciated look in the second half of the movie.

Reading movie companions always makes me better appreciate the final product (the film, of course), this situation included despite my still-not-particularly-thrilled attitude toward the movie. I am amused, though, that the book is marked as having an exclusive Q&A with Stephenie Meyer: that particular section is only two pages. It had interesting comments, but wasn't such a big deal as the label makes it out to be.

Breaking Dawn Parody Is Here

You can watch The Hillywood Show's parody here.

I feel like I'm so late in commenting on this video, though it only came out Wednesday night. But I wanted to give a day or two before saying anything so that my thoughts would be clearer, and I've also just been so terribly busy these couple of days--my eyes don't thank me for the amount of reading I've had to do.

But I've managed to watch this parody a few times by now, and I just watched all four of the Twilight parodies in a row right now. My reasoning for this is the way that I think of the old Sweeney Todd episodes: though there are four of them, I always watch them together as four parts of a whole. Might a similar thing not happen when the Twilight parodies have been out as long as the Sweeney Todd ones? And you know what I found? Breaking Dawn Parody works as a nice fourth installment . . . and it turns out to have pretty good rewatchability. 

Let me first consider what this parody achieves. It's very upbeat and happy, not so unlike how the Twilight one was. But add to that the professional polish of Eclipse Parody. The first couple of minutes are my favorite; they plunge you right in. I'm often tempted to call Eclipse's dance sequence my favorite, and this one still delivered on par with that. I only wish I could have seen the wedding dress more: this is one of the costumes I was looking forward to seeing since I'm sure it wasn't the easiest to get, yet I almost missed it on the first viewing. (I knew it was there, of course, but I didn't get to see it much--maybe because I was busy enjoying the dancing.) One thing I think I did spot, though, was the Twilight hair tools collection on Alice's counter--surely I'm not mistaken?

What comes naturally with the ground of parodies, I suppose, is the exposure of weaknesses in the original movie. As this parody was winding up, I found myself chronicling its scenes, feeling like something was missing; but, of course, the movie itself only has so many events because of the Part 1/ Part 2 issue. The parody brings into starkness the wedding, honeymoon, baby list.

I suppose there are three main twists in this video from the movie, perhaps more subtle ones than in the New Moon and Eclipse videos. First is the music and dance Bella leads the wedding scene with (which is rather like the music sequences in Twilight Parody), then is Jacob's comedic intervention at different points (this reminds me of what "bad Bella" did for New Moon Parody), and last is Edward and the rest of the Cullens' happiness set to song about the baby, in contrast to the tension in the movie during these scenes (this, in turn, equates in my mind to the approach Eclipse Parody took). Did, after the initial view, I feel like these three twists weren't quite enough? Yes. But the more I thought about it and the more times I watched the video, the less I complained (complained is too harsh of a word, but I can't think of a better). 

In fact, I find that I only keep smiling or laughing more at the birth scene, which initially I wasn't sure about, the more times I watch. Like I said, I really liked the first couple of minutes; what follows, though, I'm also enjoying. The conjuring of smiles is the most important part of The Hillywood Show, and this parody does that.

I haven't commented on the recasting of Edward; I suppose I really don't have much to say except that I like how they introduced him in the video, with the slow turning to face the camera. It fit both fans' curiosity to see the new actor and what's going on in the scene. 

One thing I have also been finding entertaining is seeing my name in the credits (under Fan Donations, of course); it comes in at about 9:28--yes, I checked the time. When looking at the Fan Donations at the end of Harry Potter Friday Parody last year, I noted that these long lists of names might help dispel some of the hate Hillywood gets from viewers who think (because of the intensely accurate sets, hair, makeup, etc.) they're just rich people with all the possibilities handed right to them. Seeing that there are donations shows that, no, Hilly and Hannah are just dedicated to what they do; they want to produce the best videos they can, and have for that reason developed a fan base willing to help them do just that. I'm glad I was able to contribute in some way, and I'm proud to have my name in the list for Breaking Dawn Parody. 

Breaking Dawn Parody: First Still

Breaking Dawn Parody by The Hillywood Show is coming up fast. The first official still, which you can view on their website, was released late Friday night. Without the parody logo in the top left corner, a glance at this picture looks like a still from the movie itself. The Hillywood Show never disappoints with accuracy.

This still makes me wonder what angle the parody will take. There is probably a good amount more "sitting around" in this movie than the previous three--how does that lend to the music video style the Twilight parodies thus far have had? Will there still be a focus mostly on Bella's perspective (as perhaps the still would suggest), or will it also be on other characters?

The countdown to February continues.

Breaking Dawn Parody Teaser

To much anticipation, The Hillywood Show yesterday released a teaser for their Breaking Dawn Parody, which will be coming out in February. You can view the teaser here.

While the video is more an announcement than anything else, still there are a couple of things to speculate about. First, they announced that this time, Jacob Jost was unable to continue his role as Edward; I have previously been impressed that almost the entire cast has been able to reprise their roles for each new Twilight parody. I guess that couldn't go on forever, although I wasn't expecting one of the primary roles to be affected.

It hardly needs saying that it looks like there will be as much attention to detail as always: even in the short clip the teaser shows, this is evident. I noticed, though, that the clouds behind the logo seem a bit more purple than the ones in the movie logo. I know, I'm probably just being too picky. But it's just possible that this is a completely conscious difference, somehow speaking to the content of the parody. Possibly.

The last main thing I am wondering about is length. All the other Twilight parodies were around ten minutes long, which allowed many of the movie scenes to get into the videos. But more recent parodies (like the Harry Potter one) have been shorter; this has seemed to be a good thing for re-watchability. So will this one be ten minutes long or shorter? I'm very curious to find out.

Breaking Dawn (Finally)

(Note that this isn't a review of the movie, just my thoughts on it--my random thoughts, like it says in my profile.)

Back when New Moon came out in theatres, it was my first semester of college and also my first time in quite a while actually living close to a theatre (I don't count the tiny local one). As a result, I went to see that movie a few times total because if I was coming home from class feeling a little unhappy (what with the whole adjusting thing) and getting rained on (as the weather is also doing this year), I would console myself by going to watch this movie again, glad that I could do so. It seemed like I would always watch the movie when it was rainy and I was in a bad mood. It was something of a tradition.

Yesterday, I had my last final for the semester, so I celebrated by some final bits of Christmas shopping . . . and it was also raining. I scowled at the rain and thought of a Harkins gift card in my wallet, finally finding myself at the 1:00 showing of Breaking Dawn. It took me a month to go and see this movie again after my first viewing on opening day.

As I give my thoughts on the movie, I must admit in all fairness that out of the four books, Breaking Dawn probably isn't my favorite; Twilight is, and its adaptation is also my favorite. I would pass this off as coincidence, but is it, really?

The problem I have is that, in my opinion, it seems like everything that could have gone wrong with splitting Breaking Dawn into two movies did. Sure, you can spend half hour on the wedding, but is it necessary to? Etc. And as I watched the second time, it seemed to me that the splitting caused a change in the primary "problem" of the story. The main problem of the book is the threat of the Volturi, but it seems that that problem has been pushed over to Part 2. The problem in place of it for Part 1 is the pregnancy . . . and, yes, it is still a conflict in the book, but not in the same way. What happened to Edward (and all the Cullens, for that matter) trying not to upset Bella or show how much he is hurt by what's happening to her? The added scene in Carlisle's office/hospital set up may show some of what the characters are thinking, but having Edward yell at Bella and then simply walk away from her? That's very out of character, only adding "movie conflict."

And I wasn't very happy with the changes made to the conflict with the wolves. They're subtle changes, perhaps, that have to do mostly with timing. Yet I find them unnecessary. The only purpose they seem to serve is to add bits of action, especially with that final fight sequence. But let me ask, was action necessary in this moment, coming just after the birth scene? Though I like a little of it, I don't watch Twilight for the action; that's for other movies to focus on, in my eyes.

I'm also wondering from whose perspective the infamous birth scene actually is. I know Bill Condon decided to shoot it, physically, from Bella's perspective, but watching that scene, I don't get the sense I get from reading that chapter as Bella tells it. Nor even as Jacob does, for the most part. Bella is essentially passed out, living in her own world of pain and blackness as she tries to remember the people she loves that she must stay alive for. And as Edward and Jacob work to keep Bella alive, Jacob is feeling the loss of his attachment to her--because, as we come to realize, his attachment has transferred itself to Renesmee. Those things aren't really what I get from that scene in the movie.

I also really missed seeing the slowly burgeoning friendship between Edward and Jacob, starting with their "deal" that the latter will kill the former when/if Bella dies. They develop a camaraderie of sorts over their attention to Bella, which sets us up for their relationship to each other in the second half of the book. If the book was split into two movies, I don't feel like something like this should have been left out.

I know, I broke my pledge not to dwell overly on pessimism. But the thing I have realized is that I like the books, and I like the first movie; after that, my interest begins slowly to dwindle. All the same, here are some things I did like.

I like what we have seen of Renesmee so far. Renesmee has to be right since she is the wonderful thing that makes all of the weird plot points seem not to matter so much. I'm looking forward to seeing more of her next year. Also along the lines of CGI, Bella's transformation was interesting to see; this is an example of something we don't really see in the book that the movie is able to show, and did show well.

The wedding speeches were funny, but watching the second time, I felt that they were more like deleted scenes material. Doesn't the fact that new bits like this needed to be added to the movie show that it wasn't necessary to split the book in two?

I know one critic complained that the movie is so dragged out that we even see Bella cooking at one point, but I liked seeing her cook for the first time. Bella is constantly in the kitchen in the books, whether it's making enchiladas to get her mind off of Edward in Twilight or washing dishes while talking to Jacob in Eclipse. I feel like this is a major character point. Around the same movie scene, I was thrilled to see Edward's handwriting for the first time, as well--the script is very similar to the font that the books use for his writing.

The inclusion of "Flightless Bird, American Mouth" at the wedding was a nice touch, although I wish that I hadn't known beforehand to expect it. I liked Kaure in the movie, although I do wish that her conversation with Edward hadn't been translated since it isn't in the book.

I think that's about it. I could certainly keep talking, but I don't want to make any more complaints--that would be ungrateful. And by the way, The Hillywood Show has met their fundraiser goal for their parody of the movie--I'm curious what angle they decide to use.

Support The Hillywood Show

I've realized that I don't talk about The Hillywood Show often enough, so I have decided to make it a point to talk about major news from them, whether this is a new parody, a new still from a parody, behind-the-scenes, or a fundraiser.

The latter is what is new right now. After how well their fundraiser for Harry Potter went, they have now started one for Breaking Dawn. Donations will go directly into the parody (except for 10%, of course, that goes to St. Jude's Children's Research Hospital). And depending on how much you donate, you can also get products like wristbands, t-shirts, and props; everyone gets their name listed in the credits of the parody.

You can donate here.

One last note on the Breaking Dawn movie itself. As you can see, I have been putting off talking about it. If I posted immediately after watching it, I knew I would have more negative than positive things to say. Now it feels like it has been so long that I likewise know I need to see it again before I give my commentary. But I'm not really in any hurry to do that. So, yes, I will post on the movie eventually, but not today.

Countdown Part 4: The Book

View my outline for this "countdown" here, Part 1 here, Part 2 here, and Part 3 here.


Aren't you so proud of me? In between reading Paradise Lost, Moll Flanders, Ken Brosky's Grendel (which is positively depressing), The Jungle Books, Mrs. Dalloway, and some James Joyce, I still managed to read the first half of Breaking Dawn. That is, I read Books One and Two and the first chapter of Book Three; this is what I expect the first movie will cover. (I'm going to finish the rest, but this was all I could get through before the movie.)

Now I have the daunting task of deciding what I think the movie must include. The thing is, as a whole, Breaking Dawn isn't really my favorite book--Twilight probably is. So I know that the movie must give proper attention to the wedding and the honeymoon, etc., but those aren't exactly things I'm looking forward to seeing in, er, so much detail. (Things like feathers make me glad I'm planning to see the movie alone the first time--that'll give me a chance to get over my embarrassment. These books are just so personal . . . which is what I like about them, but that complicates things when you bring the plot onscreen. To me, at least.) So Part 1 should include these two things, plus the pregnancy, the wolf-pack politics, and the birth scene. Interesting.

But let me get into themes here. One of the entertaining things about Book Two is the friendship that slowly develops between Edward and Jacob; that needs to be in the movie because it sets things up for Book Three/Part 2. This is very vague-sounding, but we also need to understand everyone's perspectives to what is happening. By this point, three books have established who the couple dozen main characters are: now we see application of their different natures. Bella keeps Renesmee because of her ability to make strong attachments. Edward doesn't want to do the same at first because he is too caught up in his worry about Bella. Rosalie helps Bella because she still mourns what she lost with her own life. Sam calls for the attack on the Cullens because his foremost priority is protecting his people. Seth joins Jacob because he has developed a friendship with the Cullens (which the last movie didn't get a chance to show). Leah joins Jacob to be free from Sam. It goes on, going into more detail. My point is that the plot of this book in particular seems very dependent on the individual perspectives of these groups of characters: understanding them is crucial to understanding the plot properly.

The books also draw connections between characters who belong to different groups. Alice is something like Jessica and also like Jane. Carlisle and Sam share similarities. Emmett and Felix. Rosalie and Leah. Emily and Esme. Some of these, especially Rosalie and Leah, come in most in Breaking Dawn. They help us understand the characters as individuals and also to move toward the final book moment when everyone is able to draw together on one side, realizing that their differences aren't so very great.

Some concerns I have about the movie are, of course, about how it will deal with the "mind" thing. More than any of the previous books, Breaking Dawn includes many conversations that take place either half or fully in the mind. You can present a little of this onscreen very simply with voiceover, but too much voiceover would be weird; unless they found a different way to convey it, I can't see that the movie will be able to keep these conversations quite the same. And that would take away from the tone a bit, I think.

Now a note on the Part 1/Part 2 thing. I think it's slightly awkward to split up a book like this. But I guess I should just be glad there's a market to do this for this book; the only other books that usually get a similar treatment are the classics BBC makes into miniseries. Indeed, my favorite version of Jane Eyre is in two parts, each a full movie length; yet I always watch both together as one movie. I felt there was some incongruity with the first of all these Part 1/Part 2 movies floating around right now: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The Hillywood Show did a good job of expressing this in their parody. Part 1 was done well, but didn't really have the moments most people were looking forward to. Part 2 did, but it ended up being almost a whole movie devoted to a finale. That's great when you're a fan, but it gets hard to watch and rewatch. Will Breaking Dawn be similar? In Part 1, will we just be looking forward to Bella waking up to her new life, to our favorites from the piles of characters that will come in Part 2, to seeing the Volturi in action again? In Part 2, will we just get to see the events leading up to the final confrontation?

Even as I write these things, I begin to feel that the splitting won't be much of a problem. The book is already divided into three parts, with a more distinct division at the halfway point. It reminds me of The Lord of the Rings: with all this movie-splitting that's going on, I love to think about how there could have easily been six of those movies instead of three given enough time, money, and energy to do so. Because Breaking Dawn, as I think I mentioned before, is something like the sequel to the trilogy of the first three books; it is separate in its plot and its themes. Even whether or not it was necessary to make two movies out of it, it should work.

These are very random thoughts. I don't think I even addressed very specifically what the movie should include. But sometimes it's better to be more vague, isn't it? If I say, for instance, that I really want the quote on page 284 to be in the movie, I'll just be setting myself up for disappointment. You can't get your way with all the details, so you have to remember what is most important.

Countdown Part 3: The Parodies

View my outline for this "countdown" here, Part 1 here, and Part 2 here.


I've mentioned how much I like The Hillywood Show. If you don't believe me, here is a picture of the corner where my desk is:

Yes, above my shelves of textbooks and notebooks, to the left of my stickie notes of Latin grammar leftover from the last two years, and to the right of my calendar (yes, it says October: this picture was taken a month ago) are three autographed Hillywood Show pictures and an autographed prop (Ron's sling from their Harry Potter Friday Parody). I just love to support them.

The focus of this post is on their three Twilight parodies. Though each one is around ten minutes long, I like it when I can take the time to watch all three in one sitting. This was a big time for The Hillywood Show: Twilight Parody was the first of their videos to reach a million hits. This was also the time that they made major headway in makeup, costumes, and locations (not that these weren't always good: they just got even better). I remember all the excitement waiting for New Moon Parody: it was as much as for the movie itself, some people even said they were more excited for the parody than the movie. By the time Eclipse Parody came (along with a helpful new HD camera), their work truly (if anyone had any doubts before) moved into the realm of professional (what does professional even mean?).

Does any of that story sound familiar? Isn't that a lot like what happened with the movies? Catherine Hardwicke liked the story of Twilight and made sure it got made and was as good as she could make it; this ultimately led to the indie movie's mainstream attention. New Moon, then, had a great deal of hype set up around it--and a more reasonable budget to work with. For Eclipse, people began to forget that these ever were supposed to be small movies.

But there is more than that. When The Hillywood Show parodies, they really get into the tone of the movie and what makes it what it is. So while there are already significant stylistic differences between the Twilight parodies and the Harry Potter or Vampire Dairies videos, the three individual ones are also unique. Twilight Parody is light-hearted and fun, relying on blue and white colors. New Moon Parody is rather pretty: you notice such things as cinematography and warm colors. Eclipse Parody is sleek, with flawless hair and makeup, going a little edgier. These all reflect the movies on which they are based.

There are even unconscious, probably coincidental things. Twilight Parody has something almost impromptu in its feel that matches the movie. New Moon Parody has potential pacing issues: it's the longest of the three and can start to drag slightly three fourths or so in; similarly, I think the movie does have pacing issues, including some rough cuts between scenes. And while Eclipse Parody is, well, sleek, it doesn't feel like it offers much we haven't seem before (I'm thinking about how MTV called this video a little predictable, as compared to New Moon Parody, which they praised highly). So very interesting!

But let me say it again: I love The Hillywood Show. I love that I found out about them through Twilight. I love their work, and I love their style.

Now the only thing left in my countdown is to read Breaking Dawn again. I'm disappointed I haven't been able to start it yet. But somehow I shall find the time.

Countdown Part 2: The Soundtracks

View my outline for this "countdown" here and Part 1 here.


I have really enjoyed what the Twilight movies have done with their soundtracks. The first one allowed me a way to get back into the mood of the movie while I waited for the DVD--it's impossible to listen to a song like "Flightless Bird, American Mouth," for instance, without picturing the scene it's featured in. Now, I know that listening to a movie score can do the same sort of thing, but it's different to listen to a score than a soundtrack. When you listen to a score, you are hearing point per point (or note per note, as the base may be) what you hear when you watch the movie. That helps to picture the movie, but I think it can also ultimately take away from the affect the score has on you when you actually are watching the movie. You start to get used to the music, so to speak, and it no longer can so powerfully set the tone of the scene. But with the songs on the soundtrack, you never hear the whole song in the movie; the only time you may hear the whole thing will be in the credits. So if you listen to that song over and over, you're not really spoiling the affect it has on you in the movie.

But besides this ramble, I love that these soundtracks have gotten me to listen to new music. I was introduced to Paramore through "Decode" and Florence + the Machine through "Heavy in Your Arms." Even for some of the artists whose other albums I have not bought, I still love what they bring to the soundtrack. Sia's "My Love," Blue Foundation's "Eyes on Fire," and Sea Wolf's "The Violet Hour" are some of the songs that come to mind as ones that I simply like listening to. I like that, in general, the three soundtracks mix classical music, pop music, and indie music--not only does that mean that there are favorites for everyone, but also that it gives us a chance to listen to things we might not have approached on our own.

To me, the Twilight soundtrack is raw--you can feel all of what it's bringing. New Moon gave a more somber tone, as fits the subject matter; as a whole, I think it is my favorite of the first three. Frankly, the songs in Eclipse start to drag after a while and not to distinguish themselves enough from each other, in my view.

The way that Twilight incorporated the songs into the movie was interesting: sometimes you didn't even realize these were separate songs instead of just parts of the score. The bit of "Eyes on Fire" that we hear in the movie doesn't include any lyrics, so you have to hear the whole song by itself to recognize it in the scene. This works to an advantage: the movie doesn't get weighed down by too many songs in addition to what the score brings.

New Moon has some of my favorite song moments (even while it has some very iffy score moments). "Slow Life" and "Hearing Damage" are two notable ones: they make their scenes perfect.

For Eclipse, I felt like the soundtrack was trying too hard. It seemed like we were constantly getting two seconds of a song just so that it could be in the movie just so that it could be in the soundtrack, like the bit that plays when Edward drops Bella off with Jacob. That isn't to say there weren't moments I did like; "My Love" and "Rolling in on a Burning Tire" I did. Could it also be that this soundtrack had less of an indie feel than the other two? I don't listen to a huge amount of popular music, so I hesitate to consider this too much. But if it's true, maybe that's why I feel a little lukewarm about this soundtrack.

Anyway, Breaking Dawn has the chance to include aspects of all the previous three soundtracks. There are joyful moments like in Twilight, sad moments like in New Moon, and tense moments like in Eclipse.  From my two listens (which I already feel is too much before seeing the movie), it seems like these are all there. It's hard to resist, while listening, guessing about which scene everything will go in. In fact, it doesn't seem too hard to do: all the songs have a definite tone. It seems like there is a varied mix in the type of song, as well. And listening to the new version of "Flightless Bird, American Mouth" and the song from Carter Burwell's score was emotional: it's good to have some hearkening back to the beginnings. The movies really aren't, up to now, very musically linked; that's regretful to me. So I'm excited to see what Carter Burwell does with the rest of the score.

And that's really all I have to say for now: the Breaking Dawn soundtrack proves to be at least on par with the others, with the songs seeming as fit for particular scenes as they have been previously.