The Daily

On Film

Breaking Bad

December 7, 2011 | by

The latest Alexander Payne outing, The Descendants, is based on a book, but unlike Breaking Dawn: Part 1, the book it is based on has not amassed an army of followers so ardent that they have their own moniker. The Descendants and Breaking Dawn were released on the same weekend. Undoubtedly one is making a play for an Oscar. Undoubtedly the other will dominate every MTV award category, including best kiss, best dude moment, best male shirtless scene, and whatever else the network that produces the Jersey Shore celebrates. The movies are in many ways very different. But both use sex as a submerged theme while on the surface promoting a wholesome idea of family values; both seem to devalue motherhood; and both deal with characters who are so financially secure that they are almost impossible to identify with. The Descendants is a much better film, but that is because it is not hampered by the precedent of an extremely successful book, a rabid fan base, and a studio that is out for green (so much so that they are willing to split the product into two films, even if it means stretching the material thin to the point of vapidity).

Alexander Payne likes his characters quirky, ugly, and pathetic. They are middle class. They are not in shape. They deal with death, and divorce, and affairs, and always in the ickiest ways: think Matthew Broderick preparing for an affair by washing his genitals in a motel, Jack Nicholson’s grotesque hot-tub scene with Kathy Bates, Thomas Haden Church sneaking back into the house where has just slept with another man’s wife only to hear the couple recounting the affair while having sex. Hardly anything is pretty in the typical Payne film. But The Descendants is not a typical Payne film. The movie takes place in Hawaii. It stars George Clooney. It features the gorgeous Shailene Woodley as his eldest daughter. It features her bikini so prominently that the two strips of material practically have a place on the cast list.

At the beginning of the film, Clooney’s character makes a disclaimer about Hawaii, saying that it isn’t full of people sitting about and enjoying themselves; it is full of suffering people who have to work for a living. But the movie proceeds to show exactly the opposite: Clooney doesn’t work, his daughters are taken out of school, and the whole lot get to relax at clubs and eat ice cream. They are trying to track down a man who had affair with Clooney’s wife—but this hunt takes them to all the most lavish island resorts, on islands that Clooney’s family happens to own. Everything, in short, is pretty. Everything is Payne-lite.

Of course, there’s trouble in paradise. Clooney’s character’s wife cheated on him. But, aside from thirty seconds at the beginning of the film, when we see her enjoying herself on some water skis, we never meet her. She spends the rest of the film in a coma. We hear about her love of boats and drinking. A few tears are shed. But every confrontation with her is necessarily one-sided. Everyone gets off easy: the cheating wife doesn’t have to answer for herself, and the wronged husband doesn’t have to be humiliated by a divorce. Life is simple in Hawaii; as it turns out, so is death.

Death comes pretty simply in the latest installment of Stephenie Meyer’s “Twilight” series, too: the conceit allows the filmmakers to get away with murder, literally. Meyers has set her vampire story in adolescence (never mind that Edward is more than a hundred years old and could probably be Bella’s great-great-grandfather), and the constraints and abilities of the vampires become a metaphor for the emotional chaos of high school. In the first “Twilight” installment, Edward can’t kiss Bella because he is afraid that he will get so excited he’ll lose control of himself and suck her blood; for them, sex is tantamount to death. Not that this sense of decorum prevents Edward from killing evil vampires, or nearly murdering a group of young men whose rape-fixated thoughts he can psychically overhear. Edward has murdered, and in Breaking Dawn we learn that he has murdered lots.

Of course, a few other forbidden territories are broken in as well. The protagonists finally marry, having waited until the wise old age of eighteen, and since the book and the film dutifully show them being wed, they are then allowed to fuck each others’ brains out. For a film that claims to be sexually responsible, the “Twilight” movies are awfully dependent on teenage sex to attract viewers. The actors prance about like pieces of meat, their disturbingly developed bodies on full display; Taylor Lautner’s rippling teenage chest is just a little better than the child beauty-pageant stars at the end of Little Miss Sunshine. The fans have divided themselves into teams (Team Jacob and Team Edward) and, considering that they already know the outcome of the love triangle between Bella, Edward, and Jacob, the choice of a team can mean little more than—well, you can imagine.

Not that sex leads to anything splendid when it finally does happen: Bella (spoiler alert!) becomes pregnant with a vampire that apparently develops to birth size within weeks, requires her to drink blood, and is eating her from the inside. This terrifying picture of pregnancy culminates with Bella’s rival lovers giving her a C-section, as if they are playing some perverse adolescent game of doctor.

Motherhood is the fall guy in The Descendants, too. It’s revealed early on that the daughter hates her mother because she caught her mother cheating; it is the daughter, in fact, who reveals the affair to her father and aids in the hunt for the other man. The mother remains comatose, and the movie suggests that the adulteress got what she deserved. Not even her lover, when he finally surfaces, loves her.

Bella initially fares little better; despite the boys’ best efforts, she dies in childbirth. But not to worry! She can be saved by being turned into a vampire, a recourse not available to most teen moms. But then again, those “Twilight” creators know how to get their blood—and eat it, too.

120 COMMENTS

Next:

‹ Previous:

5 Comments

« Older Comments
  1. tpl | December 15, 2011 at 10:59 am

    Certainly a delight to read!

  2. ZABA | December 16, 2011 at 1:42 am

    I thought James had great insight on both films and was witty as well. The comment on how “he must be jealous” is a bit juvenile, especially since it’s quite obvious how bad the Twilight series have become. And I agree with the comment that George Clooney’s acting lacks subtlety and range.

    I’m so tired of how some bloggers still want to crucify him for his Oscar-hosting performance. To me, it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t half as bad as they’ve portrayed.

    Why is it that when someone does what he wants and go for it, he is labelled as pretentious?

    As he points out in numerous occasion, there are people who expects actors to just act. When they do something else, it’s frowned upon or lashed at. As far as I’m concerned, he is pretty courageous to do all the things he’s doing openly, i.e. w/out a pen name. He is a very talented and exciting actor to watch, and a true artist.

  3. Gordon Naki | December 20, 2011 at 8:32 am

    Yeah, I had a problem with Payne’s movie because there is no real pain that shapes the characters. In this time of high unemployment, who really cares about spending time with a rich family in Hawaii dealing with teenie and tweenie crises? And the film avoids dealing with the issues of the locals, who are struggling with high unemployment on all the islands. We are getting a glimpse of the privileged haole in Hawaii, and it really is quite trite and boring.

  4. Page McKinkley | December 24, 2011 at 6:16 am

    It’s interesting watching some critics bend themselves out of shape over the reality they don’t actually decide or get to tell the market what they should enjoy or support.

    The Descendants, an average, faux-tear-jerker, hardly deserves the critical mauling it receives here. So one has to wonder why Franco has? Could the spoils of clicks and traffic gained by name-checking two films recently on everyone’s lips be the motivation?

    Surely not?

    As for the Twilight movies, targeting a franchise clearly geared at the teen market seems a little cheap — even for Franco. One wonders if the same scathing treatment would be handed out to the countless films marketed with either subtle or overt sexual content since time immorial, from Gone with the Wind to American Beauty et al? In which case Franco’s oddly puritanical concerns seem even more overplayed.

    Media, being the soundbite merchant that it is loves to rhapsody about teen “rabid fans” or “menopausal moms,” as if somehow their money isn’t as good as anyone else’s. But the fact is; it isn’t critics that pronounce the bottom line — but audiences. That doesn’t mean reviews or criticisms aren’t valid, simply that critics are not the sole arbiters of opinion.

    Similarly, reverse prejudices based on Stewart or Pattinson’s physical appeal are both limited and churlishly motivated, especially considering Pattinson (in particular) did not enter the fray thinking a great deal of himself — and further, whose previous roles did not play up that component. Looks may get you a knock on the door, but only talent and depth holds interest. Megan Fox, case in point.

    What cannot be denied is that both Pattinson and Stewart have potent screen presence. That presence elevated the TS movies above and beyond an over-mined genre and was the real reason why the films connected so strongly with their audiences.

    That these audiences have been largely female is somehow sumgly held against the TS films as evidence of their non-credibility. Would the same argument be levied if males had camped outside duplexes? Apologies if anyone thinks this plays the gender card, but the observation stands as valid.

    As we close out 2011, Patterson and Stewart deservedly emerge as the names to watch and invest in. It was Pattinson’s astonishing comic persona, openness and unassuming freshnesss on the horrifically gruelling press junkets he undertook — not to mention his iconic turn in the Twilight movies–that enabled him to capitalize on the expert way his team have handled his rise. Likewise Stewart’s edgy fragility, behind-the-scenes guidance, and handling of what must at times have been a ‘tricky’ line to walk — notes her as mature beyond her years.

    If critics could put the tall poppy scythes down long enough to realize the TS saga the actors involved, they would see what the insightful can: The faces at the top of the tree have reshuffled and the determined consumer power of an unfairly denigrated demographic has spoken.

    Emphatically.

  5. Page Mackinley | December 24, 2011 at 2:23 pm

    Typo correction:

    If critics could put down the tall poppy scythes long enough to realize the TS saga does not define Pattinson or Stewart, they would see what the insightful can: The faces at the top of the tree have reshuffled and the determined consumer power of an unfairly denigrated demographic has spoken.

    Emphatically.

« Older Comments

15 Pingbacks

  1. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  2. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  3. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  4. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  5. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  6. […] a column for The Paris Review, the Oscar nominee takes this film to task for its reliance on nearly-underage […]

  7. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  8. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  9. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  10. […] Dawn but only as performance art? Well, the filmmakers turned him down, and he just happened to review the film and rip it into shreds, probably because he was grumpy about not being able to make it worse by […]

  11. […] if these suggestions don’t tickle your fancy, James Franco wrote a review of “Breaking Dawn – Part 1,” which is a nice meaty read that should take some […]

  12. […] have picked a better movie to ply his new trade on: 'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1.' In his newest article for The Paris Review, the probably-one-time-Oscar-host compares and contrasts the blockbuster vampire soap opera with […]

  13. […] 2, are used to this sort of thing. Franco, a novelist, installation artist, soap star and film reviewer, would seem a less likely fit, but he’s got form too: witness his scenery–chomping turn as […]

  14. […] Here are a couple of the juicier bits from Mr. Franco’s verbose critique: […]

  15. […] are a bit meandering and often self-referential. As is the film criticism he’s done for Vice, The Paris Review, and a handful of other outlets. But let’s be honest: That’s probably why these publications […]

Leave a Comment