The regrettably, and laughably bad (but entertaining) movie Dracula 2000 gave us two new ideas for vampire movies: the first, according to one of the producers, is that all vampire movies need a little girl on girl action. Which is funny because the movie will subsequently break that rule. The second is how an atheist vampire reacts to the display of the cross. In this case Omar Epps just slaps it away, and I always thought that the presentation was about the faith of the presenter not the nature of the beast.
Wes Craven, whose name is attached to the movie as...i don't know what his role was, probably producer, gave us an interesting twist on the origin of Dracula and then subsequently all Vampires. In this film, he his not Vlad Tepes/Dracul, originally he is Judas Iscariot the one whom betrayed Jesus of Nazareth. Because of his guilt at turning over his mentor to the authorities he hung himself, but the vindictive Old Testament God wasn't done yet and cursed him as the sun set to be a vampire. It may not be kosher, but it's real story and a new one as well.
So we wonder how Meyer will handle this one. Up until now the story really has been resting on the shoulders of an annoying protagonist, possible the most unlikable one since Holden Caulfield.* No Meyer has got some spinning to do, for once it can't just be about date night between human and vampire or angsty whining and self loathing. Now Meyer has to do something creative and that is describe the origin of these blood sucking creatures.
First off let's establish that there are other vampires, "The others--the majority of our kind who are quite content with out lot--they, too, wonder at how we live. But you see just because we've been...dealt a certain hand...doesn't mean that we can't choose to rise above-."
What I want to point out is the odd phrasing that Edward makes, "dealt a certain hand." He's taking the stoic demeanor, which normally is what I have desired in this character. This time it doesn't make any sense. That phrase usually refers to fate. As in, I've been dealt the hand of dashing good looks and now I have to deal with it. However this places the blame in the wrong spot. All of the vampires in Meyer's world...or any world that possesses vampires, fate didn't deal anyone that hand. Another vampire did it, unless you put stock in strict predetermination. The Stoic outlook is slightly misplaced here.
"So where did it all start?" It's a good point that Bella oddly makes. Her question hearkens over to one of Aquinas' Cosmological proofs of God's existence: the Prime Mover Argument. If Carlisle made Edward, someone had to make Carlisle, etc. It's a normal chain of causation argument. Whereas Clive Barker gave us one definite point of origin for his vampire, now is the time for Meyer to do so.
"Or, if you believe that all this world could have just happened on its own, which is hard for me to accept myself, is it so hard to believe that the same force that created the delicate angelfish with the shark, the baby seal and the killer whale, could create both our kinds together?"
First off, let's deal with the obvious anti-big bang theory slip in. This is a betrayal of the Mormon religion of the author. I'm actually impressed with the subtlety she put into it. She has Edward say it dismissively and then move right on to the supernatural explanation. Yet there is something nefarious about what she is doing. It's important to note that she is having Edward make the comment and then he points out, "which is hard for me to accept myself." In other words, Dreamy McVampire, can't believe in the theory so why should the millions of girls that are reading this story and being told that he is admirable won't either. Religion can literally poison anything,** even an already bad character.
The real issue is that Meyer completely ignores the origin story's consequences. Most vampires, according to her are human blood drinkers. Only a small minority are like the Cullens, protecting humanity and not preying on them. This means that the creative force behind everything created a parasite like the vampire that has in its nature to drink the blood of the other sentient beings. Truly this force cannot be considered the epitome of good.***
Edward's analogy also fails as well. Sure the killer whale and the seal both exist, and of course the orca eats the seal. The difference is that in order to propagate its own species the Free Willy doesn't turn the seal into one of its own. Even viruses don't do this. What kind of force does Edward think is responsible? Because the entire world of ethics has just been flipped on its head.
_________________________
*That's not hyperbole either, I'm not sure which narrator I like the least.
**It's funny to me that this book is so endorsed by the Mormon religion and so condemned by the fundamentalist right wing who have called for its ban in many school districts.
***Not to get into a religious argument here so I'll offer this disclaimer: I'm not talking about any religion's prime deity, only the deity in Meyer's fictional world.
Wes Craven, whose name is attached to the movie as...i don't know what his role was, probably producer, gave us an interesting twist on the origin of Dracula and then subsequently all Vampires. In this film, he his not Vlad Tepes/Dracul, originally he is Judas Iscariot the one whom betrayed Jesus of Nazareth. Because of his guilt at turning over his mentor to the authorities he hung himself, but the vindictive Old Testament God wasn't done yet and cursed him as the sun set to be a vampire. It may not be kosher, but it's real story and a new one as well.
So we wonder how Meyer will handle this one. Up until now the story really has been resting on the shoulders of an annoying protagonist, possible the most unlikable one since Holden Caulfield.* No Meyer has got some spinning to do, for once it can't just be about date night between human and vampire or angsty whining and self loathing. Now Meyer has to do something creative and that is describe the origin of these blood sucking creatures.
First off let's establish that there are other vampires, "The others--the majority of our kind who are quite content with out lot--they, too, wonder at how we live. But you see just because we've been...dealt a certain hand...doesn't mean that we can't choose to rise above-."
What I want to point out is the odd phrasing that Edward makes, "dealt a certain hand." He's taking the stoic demeanor, which normally is what I have desired in this character. This time it doesn't make any sense. That phrase usually refers to fate. As in, I've been dealt the hand of dashing good looks and now I have to deal with it. However this places the blame in the wrong spot. All of the vampires in Meyer's world...or any world that possesses vampires, fate didn't deal anyone that hand. Another vampire did it, unless you put stock in strict predetermination. The Stoic outlook is slightly misplaced here.
"So where did it all start?" It's a good point that Bella oddly makes. Her question hearkens over to one of Aquinas' Cosmological proofs of God's existence: the Prime Mover Argument. If Carlisle made Edward, someone had to make Carlisle, etc. It's a normal chain of causation argument. Whereas Clive Barker gave us one definite point of origin for his vampire, now is the time for Meyer to do so.
"Or, if you believe that all this world could have just happened on its own, which is hard for me to accept myself, is it so hard to believe that the same force that created the delicate angelfish with the shark, the baby seal and the killer whale, could create both our kinds together?"
First off, let's deal with the obvious anti-big bang theory slip in. This is a betrayal of the Mormon religion of the author. I'm actually impressed with the subtlety she put into it. She has Edward say it dismissively and then move right on to the supernatural explanation. Yet there is something nefarious about what she is doing. It's important to note that she is having Edward make the comment and then he points out, "which is hard for me to accept myself." In other words, Dreamy McVampire, can't believe in the theory so why should the millions of girls that are reading this story and being told that he is admirable won't either. Religion can literally poison anything,** even an already bad character.
The real issue is that Meyer completely ignores the origin story's consequences. Most vampires, according to her are human blood drinkers. Only a small minority are like the Cullens, protecting humanity and not preying on them. This means that the creative force behind everything created a parasite like the vampire that has in its nature to drink the blood of the other sentient beings. Truly this force cannot be considered the epitome of good.***
Edward's analogy also fails as well. Sure the killer whale and the seal both exist, and of course the orca eats the seal. The difference is that in order to propagate its own species the Free Willy doesn't turn the seal into one of its own. Even viruses don't do this. What kind of force does Edward think is responsible? Because the entire world of ethics has just been flipped on its head.
_________________________
*That's not hyperbole either, I'm not sure which narrator I like the least.
**It's funny to me that this book is so endorsed by the Mormon religion and so condemned by the fundamentalist right wing who have called for its ban in many school districts.
***Not to get into a religious argument here so I'll offer this disclaimer: I'm not talking about any religion's prime deity, only the deity in Meyer's fictional world.
No comments:
Post a Comment