By Dan Cohen, Santa Monica Reporter
As I sit here writing this, “New Moon,” the second installment in the “Twilight Saga” series, has grossed more than $400 million. This, after a little more than two weeks in theaters. That number is the combined international total, but in the US alone it’s grossed over half that. The first in this series, “Twilight,” brought in close to $400 million worldwide, not counting home video, which most certainly was huge.
I bring up the numbers to offer a little perspective on the size of this recently minted juggernaut. The movies “Twilight” and “New Moon,” based on books of the same name, were produced for $38 and $50 million, respectively, by a company called “Summit,” which, until recently, was in the business of making films but not actually distributing them. Now they do both, and, with these phenomenal numbers, appear to be doing pretty well. They’ve achieved the sort of vertical integration industry ‘suits’ dream about.
It bears mentioning that when Summit produced “Twilight,” without the benefit of major stars, and at a middle range budget, the Hollywood community took a dim view of the movie’s chances for success. The general thinking was that it was foolhardy to put that much money into a vampire movie that wasn’t directed at young males, especially a vampire movie with a PG-13 rating.
What they failed to recognize, was that “Twilight,” boasted a great hook for a love story, the potent chemistry of two very good actors, and that many young women, already bonded to the books, (about 17 million in print), were slavering to see the story realized on screen.
I didn’t see “Twilight” in a theater. My initial impression, borne out by a half dozen reviews from writers I respect, was that it was a preposterous mess, pitched at teenagers. In fact, not a single film-goer or filmmaker in my circle saw the film in theaters. Still, we were well aware of its dramatic success.
Whatever else it was, “Twilight’s” success was just one more posting to the growing body of evidence that young women are a major segment of the movie going audience, and that filmmakers ignore them at their peril The films’ quality, or lack of it was aside from the point; it hit its target, squarely. But the numbers suggested a bigger story.
A quick look at the blizzard of comments posted on line showed that viewer response ran the gamut from unconditional love to a commensurate level of loathing. And that it wasn’t just boys against girls. Some of the guys, a lot of them well over 40, responded very favorably to the film.
As “New Moon” was set to open I picked up a DVD of “Twilight.” With the frenzy surrounding the film now in the distance, it was easier to see “Twilight” for what it is.
For those who’ve been on some other planet the past year or two, the story line: Seventeen year old Bella Swan, (Kristen Stewart) moves to a tiny hamlet in Washington State to stay with her divorced dad, the local police chief. Introverted, with an active imagination, she’s immediately attracted to the moody, charismatic Edward Cullen, (Robert Pattinson,) her lab partner in high school biology. But Cullen, adopted son of a local doctor, seems single mindedly bent on avoiding her.
It’s evident the two have a powerful attraction, but their chemistry is more “Wuthering Heights,” than “Romeo and Juliet.” That is, simmering, beneath the surface. A tentative friendship begins, although Edward’s erratic, sometimes rude behavior keeps them at arms’ length. Bella, in spite of chronic self doubt, summons the courage to call him on it. But she isn’t sure what to think when he confesses his fear of hurting her. Because the early scenes between the two are so skillfully acted and directed we take his remark on a couple levels. We know he’s both “undead,” and a confused teenager.
In short order Bella figures out Edward’s secret. But the truth comes with the confirmation of her other conviction, that his feelings are as strong as hers. Still, Edward’s ambivalence cuts deep, because he understands his lust is tinged with an innate desire to kill.
It may sound hokey, but the execution is smart, elegant, and expressively filmed. All sorts of conflicting feelings about love are tapped and explored. And while the movie is very focused on the emotional lives of teenagers, it’s so confident that it resonates on an adult level.
The director, Catherine Hardwicke, creates remarkable tension. She also adds a new and welcome wrinkle to the vampire genre. She’s also good with young actors, and not just the leads, but the large supporting cast. All this while avoiding a taint of parody that would subtract from the story’s emotional weight.
A sequence when Edward takes Bella home to meet his family, the high point of the films second act, struck me as completely inspired. There’s the expected awkwardness, mixed in with an element of incongruous humor; an affluent clan of immortal blood suckers meeting the ordinary girlfriend of their most promising son. It’s a set up for a sketch on Saturday Night Live, but it doesn’t play that way. The comic undertones are so deftly handled the characters become oddly ingratiating.
The Cullen family history significantly departs from the usual vampire mythology. Dr. Cullen’s five adopted kids were made “undead” on the brink of deaths caused by illnesses or accidents. They were turned at a moment when there was no other alternative.
In a peculiar nod to the civilizing influence of “family,” the doctor and his wife, (ably played by Peter Facinelli and Elizabeth Reaser,) have diverted their natural thirst for human blood to that of animals. The doctor makes it a point of explaining to Bella that they do not kill humans. This is the accommodation they’ve made in order to exist in the everyday world. But the kids, stuck in perpetual adolescence, struggle with a never ending opposition to their instincts. Each one is shown to manifest the struggle in a slightly different manner, which gives the film edgy humor at the same time it talks about the things teenagers do to control their libidos.
Bu there’s another issue, that won’t go away; the yawning chasm between the living and dead. Edward could kill Bella, and make them lovers forever, but he can’t get around the moral dilemma therein. This becomes the movies’ way of exploring the problem of desire, and it works almost effortlessly. The same dynamic was explored in “Bright Star,” Jane Campion’s take on the poet Keats’ chaste love affair with Fanny Brawne. But that entire film was a crushing bore. “Twilight” covers the same ground, in a way that’s a lot more entertaining. There’s an irony in that.
There are more good scenes than you can count: The first time Bella and Edward break out of their solitude. A tense confrontation with a trio of roving vampires. A baseball game played on the brink of a thunderstorm. And, of course, all those moments of sexual angst.
That brings us to “New Moon,” the second installment, currently in theaters.
“New Moon” is absorbing, and picturesque. Pattinson and Stewart are, once again, photogenic and compelling in the leads. Even though Edward is absent through the films middle passages, his presence remains palpable. But something’s missing. It’s partially the fact that this is a middle film, with no organic beginning or end. Beyond that, and more problematic, is the pedestrian direction.
The story line is simple and interesting. In the aftermath of an attack by a trio of renegade vampires, Edward forsakes Bella. He says that he feels responsible for her safety and goes away. He’s decided that he can’t make her part of his clan, that he has no right to remove her from the world of mortals. But we know that it’s much more than that. His libido has been turned into morbidness. Suicide is a possibility, a dilemma for the “undead” that requires a certain odyssey.
But Edward haunts Bella’s, and even appears as a phantom to protect her. In the throes of grieving, she becomes friends with Jacob, a Native American who she’s known since childhood, (also featured in the first film.) Jacob is linked to a cult of werewolves, (related to his Indian roots,) which is played as another manifestation of teenage libido. While Jacob seems even tempered, his friends can change into dangerous wolves in a flash. And they distrust the white woman.
Eventually Jacob realizes that he’ll never supplant Bella’s obsession with Edward. Her reluctance to submit ultimately tests his ability to keep his skin on. Trouble ensues.
The movie breaks down at several key moments. The human to wolf transitions are expensive but cheesy. The CGI animation leaves nothing to the imagination, unlike the first film. The wolves are badly scaled to their human counterparts; they’re much too big. Like the miscalculation in visual effects the entire film suffers from a literalness its predecessor neatly sidestepped.
Seen side by side the “Twilight” and “New Moon” make for an excellent case study in the difference direction can make, especially since both are shot by the same cinematographer. Moment to moment “Twilight” moves better. The succession of images is more impressionistic. It’s got a better feel for intimacy, less concern for narrative, more for mood. All positives.
It’s true that “New Moon” is handicapped by the story itself. Still, the producers choice of Chris Weitz, (“American Pie,” “The Golden Compass,”) is a little puzzling. Weitz’ strong suit is comedy, not the delicate, girl centric tone so carefully established by Catherine Hardwicke in the first movie. Shouldn’t they have looked for a woman who might have been better connected to the core audience?
A number of terrific directors have taken a shot at the vampire story. Francis Ford Coppola devised a slew of gorgeous set pieces for “Bram Stoker’s Dracula,” but seemed to miss the stories emotional center. Neil Jordan, the skilled Irish director of “Crying Game,” and “Mona Lisa” tried to bring Anne Rice’s “Interview with a Vampire” to life, but got lost in its narrative complications.
The best vampire movies, from the 1931 “Dracula,” to Katherine Bigelow’s underrated “Near Dark,” to Joel Schumacher’s “Lost Boys,” keep the central problem up and center, pitting the desire/fear of eternal life against ordinary mortality. And they usually work best with a good dose of sexual tension. The producers of “Twilight” and “New Moon” were canny in seizing the opportunity and finding a new angle to exploit.
In spite of the “New Moon” misstep the series will survive, and most likely prosper. If the producers listen to the audience, and there have been plenty of complaints about “New Moon,” they’ll reset the direction, away from effects and set pieces, and back to the central tension that makes this unlikely romance so compelling… and so much fun.
