The Message of Twilight
Movies are dangerous things. They send us messages which we are strangely unable to resist, thus moulding our behaviour and forcing us to see the world in ways we might not have noticed by ourselves. Movies bite!
Little wonder, in a country, like the United States, that makes so many movies in which the gun solves almost any problem, there is so much gun violence.
We, the audience, are passive receptors of whatever message the movie throws our way.
Or, so some would have you think.
The argument over just how much we are influenced by the media is an old one. It is, nonetheless, one that we should take seriously.
Quite how movies affect us, and the extent, may be open to debate. That they do, is not.
If you don’t leave the cinema – or the TV - feeling all warm and fuzzy inside after watching Field of Dreams (1989), there’s probably something wrong with you.
Likewise, who isn’t aware of the audience response to The Exorcist (1973) upon its initial release?
Simply put, you can’t fall in love with something that doesn’t affect you. And movies are definitely something that can be loved – or loathed.
It’s not surprising, then, when certain movies provoke strong reactions. What’s more surprising is just what some people are willing to condemn a movie for. And the accusations they are prepared to make.
It goes without saying, that what we criticize and how says as much about the critic as it does the object of the criticism. So, if the focus of much of the criticism of Twilight (2008) is the love story at the centre of the film, or the central female character’s apparent submissive nature, then we are able to draw some conclusions regarding contemporary views of these issues.
For instance, it appears that love should no longer be all-consuming. Young women are not only not obligated to give their love to just one person, they are almost duty bound to have as much sex with as many partners as possible. As Tina Turner said back in 1984, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” To be in love with just one person is to contravene some modern feminist idea of sisterhood – the adoption, after second-wave feminism’s years of denial – of, at least, some form of essentialism, whereby ‘women’ becomes an idea applicable to all females, thus allowing for the illusion of a harmonious conglomeration.
Or take Bella’s nature and how it makes her susceptible to an abusive relationship – because, of course, a man’s adoration of a woman can be nothing but an infringement on her freedoms and sense of self.
It is on this issue that feminists make the claim that we are passive receptors of the movie’s message. To be fair to Twilight’s feminist critics, they don’t claim that we are all mindlessly susceptible to movies, only young women. Which, seems to me, to be somewhat of a contradiction regarding their claim that women generally and young women specifically, when speaking of this particular film, do not need, nor require, the overbearing and dangerously protective behaviour of an Edward Cullen.
One Sara Elizabeth May warns:
In order to castigate Stephanie Meyer’s books and the films of The Twilight Saga, the very people who should be arguing for the ability of young women to make up their own minds and express themselves as they see fit are the very ones who claim they are incapable. Movies are so powerful, their insidious messages influence us (or, at least, young women) without our realising it, to the extent that we leave the cinema Stepfordised, ready to carry out the behaviours implanted in our receptive minds.
Must be time to ban those violent video games! Bring back the banning of the video nasty!
No doubt, what we like is just as revelatory as what we criticize. That said, having just recently re-read the novel Twilight (2005), I still find it an almost-unputdownable-damn-fine-read. So, I was predisposed to like the film and, while it certainly has its flaws, mostly I did. And do.
I’m not entirely convinced that young women are quite as mindless as contemporary feminism seems to think. But, then, I don’t think the film conveys quite the message that they claim it does.
Take Bella and whether or not she is a ‘stereotypical weak female’.
Bella’s opening monologue should not be ignored because it tells us something of her character before she meets Edward Cullen.
It is Bella who decides to leave Phoenix and her mother to go stay with her father. Though painful, it is a freely made decision by a young woman who is able and strong enough to understand and accept the needs of others. Bella’s mother is newly married and, though there’s no indication that Bella is either unwanted or unloved, she recognises that the newly-weds need some quality time together. Bella’s great crime is that, contrary to the dictates of contemporary feminism which accepts only that which reverses traditional roles – especially those of gender, of course – she is willing to sacrifice her own happiness for the sake of others. Traditionally, this would be seen not only as a strength of her character but as the greatest of all forms of love. Modern selfishness makes of it a weakness.
Bella’s critics see this weakness played out in the movie in her so-called submission to the patriarchally dominant male, Edward Cullen.
Edward suffers as a result of the modern feminist double-think every bit as much as Bella. When we are bombarded on an almost daily basis with condemnations of so-called ‘toxic masculinity’, one might think a male character who strives against all that is base in his nature would gain a little sympathy.
Don’t be silly! Of course, he doesn’t!
Sexual freedom is an important part of the feminist message. Being free to sleep-around is essential to the breaking down of patriarchy, the ultimate sign that women are no longer dominated by the need to conform as “submissive wife following silently alongside her husband, speaking only when spoken to.” (May, Op.cit.)
Bella, a virgin, will only ever have sex with one person, Edward Cullen. He, now that he has found her, will remain faithful to the woman he loves. They will have their problems and differences of opinion but, essentially, there is nothing – especially after Edward tries it in New Moon (2009) – that will separate them.
No wonder contemporary feminism riles against this movie! So, like the masterful propagandists that they are, in a strategy not unlike that made use of in modern American politics, they slander and ridicule that which stands in opposition to their goals.
Even something as beautiful as love must be made to look dirty and nasty.
Twilight isn’t as good as it could have been, but it is an enjoyable romp of a movie – speaking as someone who don’t like sparkly vampires – and it brings with it a wholesome image of young people who are capable of loving another no matter the cost to themselves.
But, I suggest, you form your own opinion and don’t be brow-beaten into thinking you’re incapable of thinking for yourself just ‘cause you like this movie.
Little wonder, in a country, like the United States, that makes so many movies in which the gun solves almost any problem, there is so much gun violence.
We, the audience, are passive receptors of whatever message the movie throws our way.
Or, so some would have you think.
The argument over just how much we are influenced by the media is an old one. It is, nonetheless, one that we should take seriously.
Quite how movies affect us, and the extent, may be open to debate. That they do, is not.
If you don’t leave the cinema – or the TV - feeling all warm and fuzzy inside after watching Field of Dreams (1989), there’s probably something wrong with you.
Likewise, who isn’t aware of the audience response to The Exorcist (1973) upon its initial release?
Simply put, you can’t fall in love with something that doesn’t affect you. And movies are definitely something that can be loved – or loathed.
It’s not surprising, then, when certain movies provoke strong reactions. What’s more surprising is just what some people are willing to condemn a movie for. And the accusations they are prepared to make.
It goes without saying, that what we criticize and how says as much about the critic as it does the object of the criticism. So, if the focus of much of the criticism of Twilight (2008) is the love story at the centre of the film, or the central female character’s apparent submissive nature, then we are able to draw some conclusions regarding contemporary views of these issues.
For instance, it appears that love should no longer be all-consuming. Young women are not only not obligated to give their love to just one person, they are almost duty bound to have as much sex with as many partners as possible. As Tina Turner said back in 1984, “What’s Love Got to Do with It?” To be in love with just one person is to contravene some modern feminist idea of sisterhood – the adoption, after second-wave feminism’s years of denial – of, at least, some form of essentialism, whereby ‘women’ becomes an idea applicable to all females, thus allowing for the illusion of a harmonious conglomeration.
Or take Bella’s nature and how it makes her susceptible to an abusive relationship – because, of course, a man’s adoration of a woman can be nothing but an infringement on her freedoms and sense of self.
It is on this issue that feminists make the claim that we are passive receptors of the movie’s message. To be fair to Twilight’s feminist critics, they don’t claim that we are all mindlessly susceptible to movies, only young women. Which, seems to me, to be somewhat of a contradiction regarding their claim that women generally and young women specifically, when speaking of this particular film, do not need, nor require, the overbearing and dangerously protective behaviour of an Edward Cullen.
One Sara Elizabeth May warns:
The fact that Bella is only capable of social interaction when Edward (or Jacob) is by her side reveals that she draws her confidence and security from her romantic partners. This sends the message to young girls that they need a boyfriend to feel good about themselves…
(May, Sara Elizabeth From Buffy to Bella: Feminism, Gender Roles, and Role Models in Popular Culture, 2008 Retrieved from: https://getd.libs.uga.edu/pdfs/ray_sara_e_201205_ma.pdf)
And again, though, admittedly, speaking of the book rather than the film,
In representing Bella as a stereotypical weak female, Meyer is sending the message to young girls that they are neither capable of nor expected to take care of themselves. (Ibid.)
Or, as the wonderfully named Wind Goodfriend Ph.D. claims, because “the course and characteristics of Bella's relationship with Edward are actually templates for violence and abuse … it's possible that the millions of screaming fans might be learning how to fall victim to a violent relationship.” Writing for Psychology Today, Ms. Goodfriend has the sense to qualify her claims to avoid absolutism, but the ‘message’ is clear - Twilight is a movie that bites.In order to castigate Stephanie Meyer’s books and the films of The Twilight Saga, the very people who should be arguing for the ability of young women to make up their own minds and express themselves as they see fit are the very ones who claim they are incapable. Movies are so powerful, their insidious messages influence us (or, at least, young women) without our realising it, to the extent that we leave the cinema Stepfordised, ready to carry out the behaviours implanted in our receptive minds.
Must be time to ban those violent video games! Bring back the banning of the video nasty!
No doubt, what we like is just as revelatory as what we criticize. That said, having just recently re-read the novel Twilight (2005), I still find it an almost-unputdownable-damn-fine-read. So, I was predisposed to like the film and, while it certainly has its flaws, mostly I did. And do.
I’m not entirely convinced that young women are quite as mindless as contemporary feminism seems to think. But, then, I don’t think the film conveys quite the message that they claim it does.
Take Bella and whether or not she is a ‘stereotypical weak female’.
Bella’s opening monologue should not be ignored because it tells us something of her character before she meets Edward Cullen.
It is Bella who decides to leave Phoenix and her mother to go stay with her father. Though painful, it is a freely made decision by a young woman who is able and strong enough to understand and accept the needs of others. Bella’s mother is newly married and, though there’s no indication that Bella is either unwanted or unloved, she recognises that the newly-weds need some quality time together. Bella’s great crime is that, contrary to the dictates of contemporary feminism which accepts only that which reverses traditional roles – especially those of gender, of course – she is willing to sacrifice her own happiness for the sake of others. Traditionally, this would be seen not only as a strength of her character but as the greatest of all forms of love. Modern selfishness makes of it a weakness.
Bella’s critics see this weakness played out in the movie in her so-called submission to the patriarchally dominant male, Edward Cullen.
Edward suffers as a result of the modern feminist double-think every bit as much as Bella. When we are bombarded on an almost daily basis with condemnations of so-called ‘toxic masculinity’, one might think a male character who strives against all that is base in his nature would gain a little sympathy.
Don’t be silly! Of course, he doesn’t!
Sexual freedom is an important part of the feminist message. Being free to sleep-around is essential to the breaking down of patriarchy, the ultimate sign that women are no longer dominated by the need to conform as “submissive wife following silently alongside her husband, speaking only when spoken to.” (May, Op.cit.)
Bella, a virgin, will only ever have sex with one person, Edward Cullen. He, now that he has found her, will remain faithful to the woman he loves. They will have their problems and differences of opinion but, essentially, there is nothing – especially after Edward tries it in New Moon (2009) – that will separate them.
No wonder contemporary feminism riles against this movie! So, like the masterful propagandists that they are, in a strategy not unlike that made use of in modern American politics, they slander and ridicule that which stands in opposition to their goals.
Even something as beautiful as love must be made to look dirty and nasty.
Twilight isn’t as good as it could have been, but it is an enjoyable romp of a movie – speaking as someone who don’t like sparkly vampires – and it brings with it a wholesome image of young people who are capable of loving another no matter the cost to themselves.
But, I suggest, you form your own opinion and don’t be brow-beaten into thinking you’re incapable of thinking for yourself just ‘cause you like this movie.
Comments
Post a Comment