Wednesday
May262010
Twilight and The Story of O
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 02:04PM
Last night, our friend, John, lugged his PS3 and two Twilight Blu-ray discs to our place for a little glitter-watching Twilight evening. No, we're not superfans, but John landed two extra tickets to the opening night of Eclipse in June, so Chris said yes, on a lark. This meant that he needed to catch up. I saw the first movie in the theatre with my mom and sister and cringed through most of it. Partially from teenage-girl recognition, partially from the melodrama, but mostly from Bella's awful victimhood.
This second time, with my camp-loving husband squee-ing beside me, it hit me -- how did I not realize that Bella isn't a lame-o victim; she's just a total masochist? She gets off on danger, on pain. That's totally her choice. She's definitely not my heroine or choice for an awesome role model, but anti-feminist? I can't say that.
Especially as the first movie was directed by, written by, based on a novel by, starring, executive produced by, and edited by WOMEN. These films also make huge amounts of money and show the industry that women and girls are a huge moneymaking audience.
My friend agreed with me, but thinks that neither a victim nor masochist makes a sympathetic character.
Bella might not be a sympathetic character, but she certainly is an interesting one. Chris compared her to The Story of O; I think that's apt. Except, of course, she has much less sex. And she's much more Mormon.
And actually, she's more of a sympathetic character than I initially thought. Maybe I'd like to push her far away from me because I like to think of myself as a woman who has total agency in her life, who doesn't want rescue or need to play helpless...
...but I can think of at least three ways I still claim the lingering role of victim. Even though I know better, even though it makes no sense, even though I'm trying to step into my power more and more all the time. Hey, at least she's consistent about her choice to get into trouble, play the victim, need rescuing.
This second time, with my camp-loving husband squee-ing beside me, it hit me -- how did I not realize that Bella isn't a lame-o victim; she's just a total masochist? She gets off on danger, on pain. That's totally her choice. She's definitely not my heroine or choice for an awesome role model, but anti-feminist? I can't say that.
Especially as the first movie was directed by, written by, based on a novel by, starring, executive produced by, and edited by WOMEN. These films also make huge amounts of money and show the industry that women and girls are a huge moneymaking audience.
My friend agreed with me, but thinks that neither a victim nor masochist makes a sympathetic character.
Bella might not be a sympathetic character, but she certainly is an interesting one. Chris compared her to The Story of O; I think that's apt. Except, of course, she has much less sex. And she's much more Mormon.
And actually, she's more of a sympathetic character than I initially thought. Maybe I'd like to push her far away from me because I like to think of myself as a woman who has total agency in her life, who doesn't want rescue or need to play helpless...
...but I can think of at least three ways I still claim the lingering role of victim. Even though I know better, even though it makes no sense, even though I'm trying to step into my power more and more all the time. Hey, at least she's consistent about her choice to get into trouble, play the victim, need rescuing.
Reader Comments