Genevieve Valentine ([info]glvalentine) wrote,

"Breaking Dawn: Part 1"

SPOILERS BELOW, for anyone who has been in a pop-culture hamster ball and doesn't know what happens in this train wreck.

***




In a telling scene in Breaking Dawn, a skeletal Bella stands in front a mirror, running her hands over the bairnsketball that she's been told is going to rupture her heart before it comes out. Various in-laws argue about what this means for her (spoiler: broken back and shattered ribs, among other things).

And Bella cringes beatifically into the mirror, and a plucky folk song plays.

This is perhaps the worst thing about Breaking Dawn: it has all the content of a horror movie with none of the context. (Second-worst thing: having to sit through the wedding in what feels like real time.)

It's almost remarkable how much the movie presents female-gaze psychological horror, made somehow even more monstrous by the romantic lens through which it's filtered. From the very first moments of the movie, in which Bella is walking around in a pair of shoes that have been purchased for her over her protests, but are nevertheless the shoes we know she'll be wearing, because of course. On her honeymoon, her husband withholds affection, because he claims he can't keep from hurting her and this is better for her; he reduces her to tears as she begs him to have sex with her. (His reason for withholding: the first time they had sex, he bruised her in the throes of passion. The movie downplays this into a few fingerprints here or there, which both dilutes the subtext of spousal abuse and makes it somehow even worse than he's stonewalling her romantically. The following silence, in which they play chess for several minutes in a Pottery Barn catalog, would be a tense portrayal of a marriage falling apart if it weren't for the comforting soundtrack assuring us that he knows what's best, and the little wifey will come around.)

When she finds herself pregnant, he withholds all support for her when she decides not to make the decision he would have made about the fetus. (Additional consequence of being pregnant: she's visually and contextually infantilized for the rest of the film, unequal even to stand up on her own). She lies about her situation and whereabouts to her father (from whom she has been effectively cut off by marriage); her friend in the know belittles and berates her. As the baby drains her life, her in-laws face off to decide what's best for her and/or the fetus (a term baby-crazy Rosalie repeatedly amends to, "BABY," in all caps). Near the point of birth, her husband blames her for having decided to keep the baby, and guilt trips her about how he will hate the child, because it is reflective of she decision she made. The baby itself snaps her spine, breaks both her knees, and causes heart failure.

It's a domestic-horror situation that seems a natural cinematic offspring of Rosemary's Baby, but somehow the film (and, to some degree, the source text) manages to put the viewer in an even more horrific situation: in order to support any kind of autonomy for Bella, the viewer has to support her series of truly boneheaded decisions in the face of people who are trying to dictate what to do and are, in fact, making more sense than she ever does. (Argument by the anti-fetus contingent: "It will kill you, there is absolutely no doubt, if you want to live you need to get it out." Argument by Bella: "Well, if it kills me it kills me, and you'll have the baby to remember me by." Help us help you, Bella!)

Perhaps the half-hour wedding scene was an attempt to frame as romantic the subsequent events of the film, which are not romantic whatsoever. Even the honeymoon scenes (in which Bella discovers that her bags, packed by someone else, contain nothing but lingerie) take on a strange purgatory quality; when she deploys peignoirs in an attempt to seduce him into having sex with her after the first bruise-inducing time, he laughs and turns away from her. (Bella's miserable face is one that appears repeatedly throughout the film, as she suffers one indignity after another.) But the movie seems determined to avoid the subtext it continually presents, and uses its succession of plinky folk songs in the background as an attempt to bring the romance back to a movie that otherwise would have us all rooting for Bella to take that speedboat back to shore and get the hell out. (The songs all have lyrics about the joy of subsuming one's entire identity, just in case you had missed the message.)

In the past, there has been enough of the absurd to help balance the creepy subtext; this movie has its moments of that as well, though they don't do much to overcome the feeling of wanting to grab a teenage girl by the shoulders and say, "You're not taking any of this seriously, right? RIGHT?" Jacob, when he reads his wedding invite, gets so angry he rips off his shirt (never not funny); the awkward wedding speeches are true to life in a way that makes you want to gently claw your own face; there's an almost-endearing montage of Bella trying to prepare for The Big Moment by brushing her teeth and shaving.

But otherwise, only the werewolves offer any relief from the A-plot horror, and that's not saying much. The pack has vague politics, and one girl-wolf whose primary personality trait is that she's unwanted by the man of her choice, and its usual limitless supply of cut-off pants stored in the hollow trees of the Pacific Northwest. However, other than trying to manufacture an outward threat for the Cullens, there's really nothing doing.

(ETA: I can't refrain from mentioning imprinting, which is presented so matter-of-factly that it somehow surpasses the surrealist comedy of a man looking into the eyes of an infant, seeing the hottie teen she'll become, and falling to his knees, mostly because the first time it's discussed is during a beach visit where it goes largely unmentioned that one of them is babysitting the toddler who will one day grow into the woman who better love him back, dammit, and the combination of the image and its apparent acceptance by everyone is a blow from which that little leitmotif never recovers.)

Having covered the body-horror in the first installment, the sequel is freed up to give Bella a chance to be the Mary Sue-est vampire who ever sparkled through the forest. That might be for the best; this movie has enough mixed messages to deal with all on its own.

(By the by, when Bella is healed and made beautiful by vampire venom in the movie's closing moments, her haggard face is smoothed over and made up; her anorexic limbs are not filled in. Even in the details, this movie really nails it, you know?)
Tags: movies, no seriously, reviews, the twilight tag i hoped i'd never have

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 28 comments

[info]lnbw

November 20 2011, 02:05:51 UTC 6 months ago

Is it just me or do you always imagine that vampires would have really nasty-smelling breath? I mean, the all-blood diet combined with the whole "dead and rotting" thing and I can't imagine that oral hygiene tops the priority list when you're immortal. Maybe she should have been brushing HIS teeth.

I can't decide if I can bring myself to watch this movie, even while intoxicated.

[info]glvalentine

November 20 2011, 03:23:27 UTC 6 months ago

These vampires are clinically pristine, so I think that's moot in this case, but I have definitely never understood a vampire who rises from his home soil and doesn't have to hit the Altoids before he hits the town.

This movie...was actually kind of upsetting? Which is weird, because it should be so bad that the message doesn't even come through, but it really is like a horror movie with a soundtrack recut so it seems romantic (like, as my companion pointed out, the recut trailer for The Shining that made it look like an uplifting family tale). So, I honestly don't know. It was comparative fun and games back when it was just awful vampire dates and the prom, but this movie kind of gave me the creeps.

[info]bedii

November 20 2011, 03:29:23 UTC 6 months ago

Originally the film rights to the first books were sold together, but this one wasn't grabbed because of the disturbing tone and physical damage to the female protagonist. Guess who tried hard to get the rights? John Waters, who knows a thing or two about making disturbing films. Based on your review he would have done a better job than what you saw.

[info]kate_nepveu

November 20 2011, 04:05:04 UTC 6 months ago

I shall hope for many feminist vids. Sounds like it will be almost no work.

[info]hfnuala

November 20 2011, 09:10:23 UTC 6 months ago

I laughed through the wedding quite happily but once she was pregnant it all got a bit too horror like without any of the characters apparently noticing. And I've had hyperemesis while pregnant so don't have masochistic fantasies about wasting away for the sake of the BABY! as it is not in the least bit pretty or nice or spiritually uplifting. I was surprised at how while the dialogue was apparently on her side, the visuals of her wasting away were not.

[info]nojojojo

November 20 2011, 04:33:04 UTC 6 months ago

His reason for withholding: the first time they had sex, he bruised her in the throes of passion. The movie downplays this into a few fingerprints here or there, which both dilutes the subtext of spousal abuse and makes it somehow even worse than he's stonewalling her romantically.

I read subtext of BDSM in consensual bruises, but I can see how it might not read that way to others (especially teenagers). Esp. since they apparently don't have the native sense to put him in bondage so he won't get all grabby with the super-mitts. But I always wonder, on hearing about this aspect of the book/film: haven't these people ever heard of woman-on-top positions? Oy.

[info]vschanoes

November 20 2011, 06:17:56 UTC 6 months ago

Maybe his super vampy strength means that no cuffs can hold him. Still, you'd think he could at least go down on her instead of being such a jerk.

[info]tekalynn

November 20 2011, 07:22:47 UTC 6 months ago

Maybe his super-strong tongue...oh God, I can't go there. Brain bleach.

[info]sabrina_il

6 months ago

[info]jethrien

6 months ago

[info]glvalentine

6 months ago

[info]livia_llewellyn

November 20 2011, 17:36:51 UTC 6 months ago

But, a good (Mormon) woman accepts the fact that it is the man who is "on top" - her wishes and desires are secondary to his, always and in all things. And no man has to defer to a woman or change for her. His needs and desires are primary, and must be respected and obeyed even if it means his wife is eternally miserable and unsatisfied - emotionally, intellectually, and sexually. This is his privilege/right as a male and her lot as a female.

Wow. I just threw up in my mouth a LOT.

[info]kitryan

November 20 2011, 20:58:13 UTC 6 months ago

i've read a handful of books with these 'but I'll hurt you, so we can't have sex' conflicts and each time I am confused and frustrated by the fact that they all take place in an alternate universe with no heavy chains or any other restraining devices.
Even more frustrating is that at least one of the reasons that this isn't presented as an obvious solution in the story is that it's probably seen as inappropriate to involve even situationally logical bondage and that it would usually involve putting a man in a powerless situation and allowing a woman to have agency in a sexual situation. Argh.

[info]boojum

November 21 2011, 08:18:54 UTC 6 months ago

It's a remake of "Man of Steel, Woman of Kleenex"!

I suppose him masturbating until he learns his body's responses and how to redirect them in safe directions is also out. They could try seeing a couples therapist who specializes in sexual problems. (The vampire secrecy thing would be a hurdle, but they could present him as being a body builder, or her as being medically fragile in some way, and get reasonable advice.)

[info]sabrina_il

November 20 2011, 12:32:32 UTC 6 months ago

Ahahaha YES. Wow, I experience Twilight largely as a pop culture phenomenon, so I read cleolinda's book summaries and have greatly enjoyed the ridiculous movies, but this movie was... oh my god D: WHAT. WHAT. I knew what would happen, but the way it was presented and the HORROR FILM aspect of it, jfc. I was not ready for that level of fucked upness.

[info]glvalentine

November 21 2011, 01:37:37 UTC 6 months ago

I appreciate the horror film aspect! I'm just sad the text didn't commit to how horrific it really was and kept undercutting itself; it would have been amazing for the lovey-dovey overtones of the first three films to suddenly turn into a nightmare.

[info]snowy_owlet

November 20 2011, 14:25:36 UTC 6 months ago

This review was almost as traumatic as reading the damn book. UGH. I am so grateful that my stepdaughter has moved on to The Hunger Games.

[info]glvalentine

November 21 2011, 01:34:50 UTC 6 months ago

I'm impressed you read the whole book! I couldn't. At some point you just have to stop.

[info]graygirl

November 20 2011, 14:53:51 UTC 6 months ago

I can't even... Only read 50 pages of the first book, not sure I could take any more, in any form.

[info]glvalentine

November 21 2011, 01:31:24 UTC 6 months ago

Then definitely skirt this one. It's the worst of the lot, and that's saying something, since each one has been progressively worse.

[info]baggyeyes

November 20 2011, 15:46:25 UTC 6 months ago

I debated whether to send this review to my sister. She loves this movie. So do a lot of the twihards who see this. They never see the abusive aspects; never see the horror. They just see the love story. I haven't read the books, and I haven't seen the movies. I'm not sure I want to read this for anything but research.

[info]glvalentine

November 21 2011, 01:28:26 UTC 6 months ago

From my line interviews of people at the midnight show of the first Twilight movie, if you're determined not to see how creepy this series is, nothing can change your mind. On the other hand, you never know?

[info]rikibeth

November 20 2011, 16:45:05 UTC 6 months ago

+a million for the Rosemary's Baby reference.

[info]glvalentine

November 21 2011, 01:00:11 UTC 6 months ago

Someday this film will be reclassified as horror and then it and Rosemary's Baby will be the subject of a thousand film-theory theses!

[info]pedanther

November 29 2011, 05:55:16 UTC 6 months ago

And how did things get into such a state that a film full of vampires isn't classified as a horror film in the first place?

[info]annakovsky

November 20 2011, 22:11:14 UTC 6 months ago

Augh, this sounds so traumatizing... and also weirdly intriguing? Sometimes I feel like these movies have a little bit of meta subtext where the creators seem to loathe the text a little bit, or at least be trying to subvert it really mildly, but maybe I'm just projecting. Or picking up RPattz's attitude. But I would kind of really like to see this book made into an actual horror movie, I guess is what I'm saying, because YIKES.

[info]glvalentine

November 21 2011, 00:58:37 UTC 6 months ago

I really like to think Kristen Stewart was trying to project misery at every opportunity, just in case the right subtext accidentally escaped. If you switched out the soundtrack and kept her facial expressions, it would be a legit horror movie. (I'm waiting for someone to set the whole thing to Philip Glass and really drive that point home.)

Robert Pattinson is so over that entire franchise, you can just smell it.

[info]krylyr

November 21 2011, 21:23:39 UTC 6 months ago

I guess it was hoping too much for Bill Condon to actually make something filmable/interesting with this mess. Ah, well.

(I haven't read the books, but know some of the spoilers, natch. Or thought I did? I thought the birth/imprinting was some of the final plot points. D'oh. I can't believe there's more still to come...)
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…