Born to Believe (or Pejorative Fantasy)

According to dictionary.com, pejoration is defined as 1) depreciation, a lessening in worth, quality, etc. or 2) semantic change in a word to a lower, less approved, or less respectable meaning. So my question is this: when did fantasy become a mode for disseminating personal agendas? Or when was fantasy not used for these agendas? OR, when was it decided that fantasy could be a carrier for these agendas?

Some might say that this is a recent development, but one would only need return to a modern-day watching of Bambi or Snow White to receive quite a lesson in the use of propaganda to tell a story. It's nothing new...


In light of the release of the upcoming Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 release in November, I wanted to offer my readers a (not too) brief but interesting refresher course on - well, no, you caught me. This is pretty much an article about those who would force agendas on the world while denying others the prerogative to do the same.

Twilight Brings A New Moon Later Eclipsed By The Breaking Dawn

When Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 hit the theaters, reviewers and pundits flocked to their cubicles, couches, or reserved seats at coffee shops around the country. Steno note pads, writing tablets, and laptops at the ready, poised fingers flit over the surface of their latest masterpiece - the review that will catch every eye and garner the attention of every editor they've dreamed of working for.

The hope? That lady Muse (or, to avoid the rampart sexism inherent here, Mr. Inspiration) would bless those nimble digits with a dexterity Stephen King himself would have to marvel at. Alas, what most find is the need to resort to gimmicks, name-calling, self-important jargon, or lackluster associations. And truly, in the absence of real insight, writers are reduced to monkeys typing into oblivion hoping to produce the next Hamlet. Word play alone won't earn a following, vitriolic invectives entertain only for so long, and, well... actually, I don't know that people ever get tired of conjuring up smoke and mirror associations to raise another's heartbeat and blood pressure. We do like a good car wreck, don't we?

The first time I saw BD Pt. 1 with the youth at my church. I really enjoyed it, despite the negative reviews from Facebook friends who had seen it before me, and decided I needed to read the books again - yes, again - before BD Pt. 2 comes out. The second time I saw it with my wife - both during opening weekend. I enjoyed watching for those little nuggets I'd missed before, largely having to do with the actor's performances and special effects. At home Rebeca happened upon this Wikipedia article that absolutely astonished us.

A Wikipedia article does not the truth make... but sometimes the documentation can lead us to some interesting tidbits. It seems that writers have aimed their verbal guns at this newest film in the Twilight Saga through the cross-hairs of personal ideology. No doubt we all are not so objective as we feel at times, and our own opinions and beliefs are often conveyed through our words and writings, but it's possible that a movie review might be a better place to... review a movie, without one's incensed or poetic attempts to garner a following. Well, I'm not entirely sure that doing otherwise is even possible. But I'm still willing to give it a shot here, give some snarky comment when I fail miserably, and simply enjoy the cathartic process of writing. Let's get to it, shall we?


Hackles & Shackles
Except for those precious grubs that have been living under a rock, knowledge about the Twilight Saga of books and movies from the imagination of Stephenie Meyer is hardly privileged, need-to-know information. You may not be Team Edward or Jacob, or have a poster of Bella on your ceiling above your bed (by the way, I'm not admitting anything there), but you likely have some kind of opinion about it all: the books, movies, characters, or even the people who like/dislike the books, movies, or characters. As I have already taken the liberty to do for many people in person, I encourage all who read this blog to read the books - Twilight, New Moon, Eclipse, and Breaking Dawn - and then, at least, you can make an educated critique of the movies and the surrounding phenomena. Some reviews seem to have subverted the teen drama of the books and movies and opted for the more cerebral route of imputing them with personal ideologies and agendas. More than any other, one agenda stands out as the crowned jewel for pompous discussion, post-viewing.

 One link asks if the movie is even appropriate for teens. In addition to arguments against the sex, teen pregnancy, rejection of Bella's parents, and bloody birth scene, Chen argues that the movie weighs in too heavily on the abortion debate. First off, Bella, in the books as well as the movie, is not a champion for the pro-life movement but a girl of marrying and procreation age that wants to have a baby. She is freaked out when she finds out but warms to the idea and decides to have the baby. There are no "I believe life begins at conception" or "God made this a baby, not a glob of tissue" arguments. She shows strength and resolve. But Chen says, "The bulk of the movie is one long pro-life debate. Sure, Bella says it's her body, her choice (terms usually used in the pro-choice movement), but her decision is pro-life to the extreme... Ultimately both mother and child survive, but there's so much "fetus" vs "baby," life begins at conception talk that it's bound to confuse some younger viewers."

I don't have to rewrite Chen's words to convey them in pro-choice drama - they ooze contempt for any woman's choice to bear a new life, especially if it means danger for the mother. I see here a pro-choice sentiment that would remove the choice from a mother if danger seemed eminent. Where then is the choice? Or, is the only acceptable choice one that makes abortion a legally acceptable, culturally encouraged option? The "fetus/baby" war Chen imagined happened once - once. As a matter of fact, the adjectives "fetus, it, and thing" were used more than the term "baby" because the shocked family of vampires questioned the nature of what a humavamp hybrid really was. We cannot remove the movie from it's "based on the novel by..." context, the fantasy genre, or its entertainment medium. And since the phrase, "life begins at conception" wasn't in the film, one has to wonder where she got such a phrase. Where... where did she get it?

Chen masks her agenda with a thinly veiled plea for younger viewers, the ones who may be confused by fetus, baby, conception talk. This is graduate school drivel - if youth are too young to get the political undertones Chen is worried about, they won't lose any sleep over it. If they are old enough to understand and ask questions, shouldn't we be open to sharing with them the nature of the debate?

I guess the 'confusion' comes in when youth are led to believe that it's okay to not be okay with abortion. It's certainly not culturally PC these days to say such things, but would pro-choice advocates truly want to remove another's right to have that opinion? If so, it sounds rather intolerant. But I know that, as a pro-life (not anti-abortion) advocate, I actually can't use the "intolerant" term - it's a one-way street, and I'm the one that's supposed to be staring into the headlights of progress, not the other side. But I digress with much ado about nothing.

What Chen missed, apparently, was the intense emotional struggle of people torn between their love for each other and a human's understanding of a decidedly human phenomenon that would not be possible once she is "changed." Rosalie is on Bella's side because she envies her the decision to choose, which she never had. It's in the books, and in the film Eclipse. Let's not reduce the troubled angst to a political statement, okay Chen?

Weighing in with similar positions, The Torontoist called it an "anti-abortion parable." Neumaier says in this article that Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 is "as anti-sex, anti-thrills, anti-abortion, anti-drama and, well, anti-plot as any major recent film." I think he's very proud of that line especially. I almost expected to see a yellow smiley face at the end of the line, were it not for the elevated pomp his review must have been going for. I have to admit, though: when me and my youth emerged from the dark theater with our bowler caps and London Fog trench coats, we hastened to a city corner coffee shop and discussed the perfectly blasé attempt Condon (the director) made at finding a suitable genre platform. Yes, yes, we didst giggle over our biscotti and lightly sweetened coffees. For this is what youth do ever so love to do.

These articles were less movie review than ideological platforms and self-aggrandized statements to pad a career. One has to wonder how the term "anti-sex" gets attached to characters who were rarin' to go after their wedding (until Bella appeared harmed by the throes of passion) and Bella's continued desires to do "it" again juxtaposed with Edward's refusal to harm her again by "losing control." Anti-sex indeed.

Morris, in another article, says by not reading the books, he possesses "objectivity needed to grade the movies on their own merits." I applaud you, sir. Whenever I go to see a movie, my desire is to study the thing to death, to remove it from its creative, emotive surroundings, prick at it, and examine how it reacts to the blood-letting. I would humbly submit that you're missing a great deal of the movie-watching experience. And yet again, Morris joins the politically active in focusing on what he believes is a radically pro-life mantle surrounding the film. Objective. Nay, sir, but a continuation of the beliefs of many. You can put your trail-blazing persona to bed for the night.

But one article, from the feminist Ms. Magazine, perhaps argues more for women's rights than others combined, calling Breaking Dawn Pt. 1 "an anti-abortion message in a bruised-apple package" - imagery that hearkens back to the cover of the first book, and the textual references to the forbidden romance between a human and a vampire. This magazine gets its hackles raised with Bella's choice hotly against their opinion, and the agenda-laced perspective completely ignores the arguments of others who argue for terminating the pregnancy. The feminist shackles blind Wilson from seeing that a choice against the choice she would make is still that - a choice. It's not threatening unless you actually need others to agree with you to feel validated. There appears to be an unspoken belief that if a woman chooses to keep a baby - even if at great cost to her personally - she is being manipulated by others. This is ideological deck-stacking at its finest.

Another gentleman named Richard Lawson, clearly a high school student with his finger on the pulse of youth today, refers to the themes of love, lust, and loss. This daisy deserves his own paragraph, as he goes way off the res and we must follow him there to see how ludicrous he becomes (I haven't included the link because much of what he says is actually inappropriate).

I don't even know how to describe his opening paragraph but by warning parents to keep a keen eye open for such sex-crazed men. As a personal apology on behalf of Mrs. Meyer, I am sorry the movies didn't meet your sex-filled criteria for romance. Do you happen to be happily married, or just a cavorting, lecherous old man? In a jumping, twisting, flight of fancy Lawson says, "that Meyer chooses the terrible pains of becoming an undead bloodthirsty nightmare creature to be her metaphor for sex is more than a little telling of this story's curious and frustratingly retrograde sexual politics." Hmm, I'm a little concerned with how much sex is on this man's mind, and why he's imputing it into a teen romance. He would, no doubt, enjoy an afternoon with Freud over coffee.

But alas, the purpose of this article leads me to cut to the chase and mention Lawson's belief that the movie is an "anti-abortion sermon" - this is what "heroes do, girls," is a statement about the reproductive politics of those most involved in the film. If "there was no escaping the firmly anti-choice themes" of this movie, then what does one do with the choice each character shows to have their own choice? Okay wait, I thought we were actually talking about freedom to choose, not just freedom to choose abortion so the social - and timely - agenda out here in the real world can be advanced. All I have to say is thank goodness this reviewer could give me a little unbiased, political-free review material - I'd hate to be purposefully swayed by the subjective agenda!

Fiction & Fantasy
All people are born into a particular space, time, and continue on in the influences that affect them directly. We are affected by economic, social, religious, educational, and innate factors that comprise who we are. Even more disturbing than judging another's work against our personal framework, and discounting it according to how it measures up, is self-righteously assuming that another is subjectively indoctrinating the masses whereas we - the humble, the few, the untouched by bias - are more objective. There is a deep-seated root of arrogance and pride that under-girds such biases.

Beliefs are central - i.e. innate, not peripheral, not ancillary, not an afterthought or learned behavior - to who we are as human beings. We are born with them. We grow into them. We make them every day, some without any discernible thought. Our beliefs may change through time but we should not think ourselves immune to beliefs because we do not classify our own with the same negative stigma we do another's beliefs.

With regard to Meyer's books (and the movies based on them), we do well to return to her thoughts, her perspectives, and her reasons for writing them. Reviews that assume say more about our beliefs than hers, and assumptions... well, you know how that little saying goes.

According to the Wikipedia page for the book, Breaking Dawn, Meyers' influences were in fact from Shakespeare - The Merchant of Venice and A Midsummer Night's Dream to be precise. But the Twilight Wikipedia page is more thorough to this end and thus included here. What I wonder is how we are served as a society by re-contextualizing the art of an independent artist as our personal convictions and opinions hold. As a youth minister, I regularly use media (whether video or music, and it doesn't have to wear the "Christian" label to be used) to relate a scriptural perspective. I do not imbue the medium with scriptural significance if the artist lists no intent there, nor do I suggest that scripture proverbially lives on through a piece of modern art.

I think it's telling that not ONE review I read purported to quote Stephenie regarding her views, political or otherwise. I don't recall hearing of Meyer's "I just thought about the plight of the unborn and decided to write a book that would hopeful give them a chance at life" public statement being released for criticism. Some might say it's wrong to impose our agendas on another's words or work and judge them with these assumptions in mind. I would agree with them.

For my part, I appreciated the books and movies (thus far) for what they appear to be to me - a modern retelling of the star-crossed lovers, Romeo & Juliet. Well, that and a timely rebuke against the neoconservatism spreading out to engulf the young in its tidal sweep of ageism and its structurally protective move to deny young adults the rights and privileges of their more seasoned counterparts. But then again... maybe that's just me reading something into the story that wasn't there in the first place.