|
Twilight books / movies (pg. 7)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not really interested in a psycho-analytical angle, especially that kind of angle, because that kind of angle is only interested in providing endless proof to support its ty hypothesis.
I'm more interested in the feminist angle. It was Laura Mulvey's feminist analysis of cinema that popularised the idea that cinema is essentially patriarchal: male characters are usually active subjects where as women are passive objects. The passive/active thing would seem to be fairly crucial: a big part of this feminist theory is that men are defined by their actions and behaviour where as women are treated as objects and defined entirely by their appearance. But a lot has been made of how the male characters in Twilight are sexually objectified, especially by male geeks who don't like fantasy genre tropes being inverted. Is Twilight more or less patriarchal than the conventional model?
Another interesting subject is exactly why this has become so popular. With most male-oriented genre fiction it's pretty easy to decode the popularity. Whether it's comic book superheroes, animé, Jedi, the Matrix or Harry Potter's wizards, they all revolve around marginalised, usually geeky male figures being granted extraordinary powers that transcend their physical and social limitations to allow them to become heroic and powerful. Twilight is one of the few hugely popular teen-oriented fantasy narratives that doesn't fit the model, and it happens to be mainly consumed by girls. So what's the secret? |
I won't get into that debate (i.e. Freud vs. not Freud). I will say, without expanding on the Freudian angle, that a whole plethora of both imagery and motifs I've been able to discern from the discussion relates, seemingly well, to the disorders discussed in Female Perversions by Louise Kaplan.
Werewolves and little anorectic girls both grow "fur"; the female version of which is sparse and thin and a biological response to the body starving itself but which, Kaplan suggests, is also parcel to attain an appearance more like daddy. The delicate self-cutter seems almost to be screaming from between the lines of heroes and vilians who pierce the skin of their quarry, albeit with their teeth and not a razor blade. Nevermind the fact that when they grow up, cutters seem more likely to find (often multiple) romantic partners who are into rough sex - something the ridiculously masculine lycanthropic and vampiric characters seem both capable of and prone to. Finally, these books and movies seem like thinly veiled Bodice Rippers - also discussed in Kaplan's book.
The franchise seems wholly perverse in the since of appearance masking reality. Almost all of the disorders in Kaplan's book, its themes and imagery relate to, have to do with indifference from (anorexia) or an absence of (delicate self-cutting) father. And to think about it, that a young gurl would be torn between two lovers, one of whom is over one-hundred years old - in conjunction with your observation about a key patriarchal theme - it just screams "daddy issues." |
|
|
| Lews |
Here's a very interesting article on Twilight that I highly recommend for anyone (male or female): http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...f-the-She-Geeks
Like two or three years ago I had this friend who raved about the books so I read the first page in a bookstore once and that was as far as I've gotten.
Fughawzi has read them, but hates them with a passion. She may have thrown up after pirating one of the movies, I can't recall.
I'm a lucky guy :) |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Schadenfreude
Fughawzi ? |
Lews' gf has posted here a few times. That's her screen name. |
|
|
| Schadenfreude |
ahhh.
you probably shouldn't have told me that:p |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
Already read it.
@Eddie: Doesn't Kaplan build on a lot of Freudian concepts such as castration complexes and penis envy? Although, to be fair, I seem to remember Mulvey building heavily on Lacan's equally absurd Mirror Stage theory. The conclusion I'm currently reaching is that feminist psychoanalytic readings are ing stupid. |
|
|
| Sushipunk |
| quote: | Originally posted by Schadenfreude
ahhh.
you probably shouldn't have told me that:p |
:haha:
Nah, she's pretty cool actually. |
|
|
| mezzir |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
I'm not really interested in a psycho-analytical angle, especially that kind of angle, because that kind of angle is only interested in providing endless proof to support its ty hypothesis.
I'm more interested in the feminist angle. It was Laura Mulvey's feminist analysis of cinema that popularised the idea that cinema is essentially patriarchal: male characters are usually active subjects where as women are passive objects. The passive/active thing would seem to be fairly crucial: a big part of this feminist theory is that men are defined by their actions and behaviour where as women are treated as objects and defined entirely by their appearance. But a lot has been made of how the male characters in Twilight are sexually objectified, especially by male geeks who don't like fantasy genre tropes being inverted. Is Twilight more or less patriarchal than the conventional model?
Another interesting subject is exactly why this has become so popular. With most male-oriented genre fiction it's pretty easy to decode the popularity. Whether it's comic book superheroes, animé, Jedi, the Matrix or Harry Potter's wizards, they all revolve around marginalised, usually geeky male figures being granted extraordinary powers that transcend their physical and social limitations to allow them to become heroic and powerful. Twilight is one of the few hugely popular teen-oriented fantasy narratives that doesn't fit the model, and it happens to be mainly consumed by girls. So what's the secret? |
Reading too much into it, she's a mormon, the book wreaks of mormon overtones, that being one of them. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by mezzir
Reading too much into it, she's a mormon, the book wreaks of mormon overtones, that being one of them. |
So your conclusion is that millions of teenage girls want to be Mormons?
Deep. |
|
|
| mezzir |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So your conclusion is that millions of teenage girls want to be Mormons?
Deep. |
No, just that it explains all the dominant male culture. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
Already read it.
@Eddie: Doesn't Kaplan build on a lot of Freudian concepts such as castration complexes and penis envy? Although, to be fair, I seem to remember Mulvey building heavily on Lacan's equally absurd Mirror Stage theory. The conclusion I'm currently reaching is that feminist psychoanalytic readings are ing stupid. |
Rather eloquently, I would add - hence my disclaimer regarding Freud. Even if you don't buy into Freudian theory, I still recommend the book. It's far more readable than Melody Beattie's plodding irrelevance in Codependent No More. If anything, it's an interesting perspective on its topic. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
So your conclusion is that millions of teenage girls want to be Mormons?
Deep. |
Sounds stupid put that bluntly, but I think something like that may be at work. From what I have heard, the book is quite "chaste" in its treatment of relationships, which may appeal to women in the current climate of backlash against "raunch" sex culture and its alleged cheapening of female sexuality.
Then again, I think that trend may be pretty specifically American, so I doubt it explains much of Twilight's popularity elsewhere. |
|
|
|
|
