Skip to main content

Total eclipse of the art?

Eclipse, the third film in the Twilight franchise, based on the Mormon-authored teen-celibate-vampires-&-werewolves-saga, has been getting a mauling at the hands of some British critics in today's FT and Guardian that would make Jacob's doggy fury seem like wee batsqueak.  This one is better than the second, which was dire - slow, and often terribly flat.

The first film is a classic of high school longing and angst, and by far the coolest and funniest.  However, this one, though also flat in places, is never dull for long.  Instead, the B-plot, a growing army of newborn Seattle-based grungy vampires planning to come and massacre Bella and by extension Forks, is constantly intercut, to only slightly jarring effect, with the soapy romantic (and bizarre) love triangle between the undead Edward, and the incredibly buff Jacob.

This is the part I enjoyed.  The romance - easily as emotive and moving as anything in a James Dean film, or any equivalent coming of age teen movie you'd care to name (Say Anything) - is filmed against a backdrop of snowy peaks and green firs worthy of David Lean.  This gives the lovers an epic film.  The screen kiss between Bella and (gasp) Jacob is very thrilling and lovely.  I dare anyone with a heart and adolescent bone in their body to not be impressed.  There are some good join-forces-with-the-enemy jokes.

Kristen Stewart has eclipsed both male leads Pattinson and Lautner in the beauty department - her onscreen charisma factor is very high indeed, and she makes dark-haired girls the new blondes.  I'd nominate her for an Oscar for this film.  She has imbued Bella with the fiery spirit of Scarlet O'Hara, and the haunting anguish of Ilsa, in Casablanca - two classics this franchise bases key beats on.  Critics who complain about this must be humourless grumps (sorry, Peter!).  Give me a break.  Eclipse is the summer swoon flick.  Blood simple.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A  poem for my mother, July 15 When she was dying And I was in a different country I dreamt I was there with her Flying over the ocean very quickly, And arriving in the room like a dream And I was a dream, but the meaning was more Than a dream has – it was a moving over time And land, over water, to get love across Fast enough, to be there, before she died, To lean over the small, huddled figure, In the dark, and without bothering her Even with apologies, and be a kiss in the air, A dream of a kiss, or even less, the thought of one, And when I woke, none of this had happened, She was still far distant, and we had not spoken.
Post a Comment
Read more

Poetry vs. Literature

Poetry is, of course, a part of literature. But, increasingly, over the 20th century, it has become marginalised - and, famously, has less of an audience than "before". I think that, when one considers the sort of criticism levelled against Seamus Heaney and "mainstream poetry", by poet-critics like Jeffrey Side , one ought to see the wider context for poetry in the "Anglo-Saxon" world. This phrase was used by one of the UK's leading literary cultural figures, in a private conversation recently, when they spoke eloquently about the supremacy of "Anglo-Saxon novels" and their impressive command of narrative. My heart sank as I listened, for what became clear to me, in a flash, is that nothing has changed since Victorian England (for some in the literary establishment). Britain (now allied to America) and the English language with its marvellous fiction machine, still rule the waves. I personally find this an uncomfortable position - but when ...
15 comments
Read more

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se....
3 comments
Read more