I guess I was always going to get around to doing this anyway, so I might as well get it out of my system. What did I think of Twilight and its three sequels? I’ll try to write this review in broad strokes rather than dwelling on details, but there will be spoilers, so if you haven’t read the books and don’t want to know what happens . . . stop reading here.

Writing Style
Stephanie Meyer can paint a scene. She knows just the right details to sprinkle into her descriptions for the scenery to come to life in the reader’s head. The emotions of her characters are thick and tangible, causing the reader to feel the same things in empathy. Sometimes, however, she can stumble over her own prose, awkwardly using the same word twice or even thrice within one paragraph and unintentionally drawing attention to it. A zap-word, we call it. The dialog is generally passable, and often reverberates effectively with tension and emotion. Stephanie Meyer certainly knows how to tell a story. I’d file her along with Terry Goodkind into the category of “not such a great writer, but incredible storyteller.”

Thematic Elements
On the surface, the story is about a human and a vampire falling in love and making things work. Pretty silly, right? I know some people who are put off by the premise alone. But in the case of all fantasy, there are more fundamental issues in play than the surface details. Essentially, the theme that makes the story so compelling is the apparent impossibility of Bella and Edward’s love, made so because of the variance in their personal backgrounds, and the monumental decisions of self-sacrifice both of them make to be together. And that is a very real, very human experience, regardless of whether Edward Cullen has a heartbeat or not.

Characterization
The mystery that is Edward Cullen and his siblings immediately grabs you, stringing you out as you wait to discover the next thing about them. After the deeper mysteries have been revealed, the story keeps you going. Edward is sometimes rather controlling and exhibits some stalker-like behavior at first. Some of his actions are forgivable only because they’re done specifically with Bella’s personal safety in mind. But he later learns how to loosen his grip. Contrary to popular belief, he isn’t perfect, and displays some very human flaws.

Bella . . . well, she’s there. Her awkwardness and her self-deprecating humor are enough to convince the reader that she actually is human. Once in a while she feels the need to remind you of that fact with a panicky emotional overreaction, which can be quite amusing in itself. Usually she’s likable enough, and Meyer’s rendering of her emotions never fails to draw empathy, but overall, I don’t think she’s a very deep character. Her primary redeeming quality is the earnestness and constance of her love for Edward, although that does waver ever so briefly. Her morose reflections in New Moon may get a bit annoying though for some, though they didn’t really bother me.

Jacob, the Native American boy turned werewolf, is a likable and endearing character at first who turns into a self-absorbed vindictive jerk who doesn’t know how to let things be. I did not particularly enjoy his point of view section in Breaking Dawn all that much.

Alice rocks. ‘Nuff said about that.

Worldview
The story of Bella and Edward has some good qualities to it, along with a major, and ultimately fatal fault.

First, I must note that the biggest criticism I’ve seen in general reviews is the fact that Bella is a bad example for young women because she marries and then conceives a child so young, at age 18, before going to college. Scandalously, she accomplishes all this with the first guy she’s ever been in love with! Well, pardon me, but that’s a much better example than the pre-marital, free-love, trial-and-error sexual license that is so much more pervasive in young adult cultural icons. If it weren’t for the story’s fatal fault, I’d applaud it.

First the good:

Twilight gives props to creationism when Edward says there is no way he and Bella could have evolved by chance, and that the same creator who designed her must have designed him as well. Not an issue I expected to come up in a vampire story.

The story is radically pro-life. Bella refuses to give up her unborn baby even though keeping it means certain death. No ordinary baby this, since it’s also Edward’s child, it breaks bones when it kicks and demands human blood for nourishment (acquired from hospital donor banks). The delivery scene is like something out of a horror film.

The story is pro-marriage. Edward refuses to have relations with Bella before marriage, and refuses to turn her into a vampire until they are married. Bella has no such qualms and initially throws a fit about both, but she eventually comes to recognize the beauty of marriage and married life.

The story is pro-family . . . somewhat. Bella initially hides her relationship with Edward from her father, and the story appears to justify it by circumstance. It’s interesting to note that while Bella is the human, her parents are divorced and she’s rather distrusting of them. On the other hand, the Cullens are a model family, with a warmth and closeness between parents and most of the siblings, with respected authority structures and familial care, and little in the way of secrecy. The interior of Carlisle Cullen’s house is decorated by a giant cross . . . and it isn’t upside down.

The fatal fault:

The great sticking point of the Twilight Saga is entirely human in nature, and has nothing to do with it being a vampire story, which, as I said, is almost incidental backdrop for the thematic material. The real problem with the story is that it deifies romantic love. Love without the Triune God? As Admiral Ackbar says in Return of the Jedi, “It’s a trap!”

Certainly, Twilight is not alone. There are hundreds of love stories that do the same. In fact, any non-Christian love story will ultimately deify romantic love. But usually they’re more subtle. When Bella begins to say things like “I’d sacrifice my own soul to be with Edward for eternity,” that sort of brings the issue front and center. This deification displays itself in some weird and ugly ways, particularly in Breaking Dawn, which I won’t go into here.

Interestingly enough, Twilight models itself largely on the story of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet, in which the lovers also stumble into the pitfall of deifying romantic love. Bella’s eagerness to offer her soul on the altar of love at all costs merely echoes Juliet’s appeal to Romeo to “swear by thy gracious self, which is the god of my idolatry.”

The difference between Twilight and Romeo and Juliet is that while Shakespeare’s play is a cautionary tale ending in tragedy, Bella and Edward commit the same offense but get to live happily ever after. While Romeo and Juliet warns young people against the dangers of deifying romantic love, Twilight positively revels in it.

Psychology
I’m adding this section after some discussion with Hannah Roorda and Laura LaPrise. It’s sort of a subset of the Worldview section, but I decided to separate it out.

There is a downfall to Stephanie Meyer’s deftly painted and highly empathetic characters. What they feel, the reader is made to feel as well. Be that love, fear, anxiety, depression, contentment, obsession, or physical desire. There is admittedly a great deal of difference between Twilight‘s long passages describing aching physical need for a person of the opposite sex and the interaction between them in Bella’s first person point of view and Shakespeare’s almost comically brief: They kiss.

Of course, Romeo and Juliet was written to be acted out on the stage, and that accounts for the brevity in the text. But prose has a powerful effect on the impressionable mind. Especially for those with vivid imaginations. Meyer avoids being graphic or explicit, but she gives more than enough for a reader to easily fill in the blanks.

Something should be said about the psychology involved in the widespread fan fascination with Edward. Another review observed, and I agree, that his appeal is because he offers to young women something they don’t get from real men.

In some ways, he is more of a man than most real men today. He sacrifices his needs and his very self against his own nature because he loves Bella. He takes control of situations, albeit sometimes with a heavy hand. He is the ultimate protector, disregarding even his own safety. And his love for Bella doesn’t drive him to give in to her every whim. He sets boundaries and sticks to them, more or less. Does this remind us of anything? It should. When a man displays these qualities in any combination and to any extent, young women are “wired” to respond in a certain way. Even if those qualities are displayed imperfectly. There is a theological reason for that.

I think when a cultural phenomenon like Twilight emerges, we should take notice of what exactly the appeal is. It might even shock us into realizing something we’ve been missing. Some will object that there are better materials to teach us that. I don’t doubt there are. The Bible is a good start. But sometimes a cultural phenomenon with its immediacy has more shock value for waking people up than a stack of “good” books.

Men today have forgotten how to be men. The feminist movement and the cry for total equality in roles as well as hierarchy has encouraged them to bend the authority structure and their very behavior to accommodate assertive women. Even those who don’t agree with feminism have been affected by a culture that neuters men and tries to empower women over them. When men won’t act like men, women are forced to step up and take control, whether they want to or not. But that goes against the natural created order. Men are still men, and women are still women. They innately know there’s something wrong with that picture. Men are responsible to lead, and women are created to follow.

Stephanie Meyer comes along and gives women something they are really looking for in a vampire named Edward Cullen. No, he’s not perfect. He has personality flaws. But Meyer has taken an ideal of masculinity and characterized it, exaggerating the virtues along with the faults. Young women everywhere have responded.

It’s interesting to note that the backlash against the series comes largely from two directions. Christians who are understandably and justifiably concerned with the effect that the series’ sensuality will have on young people . . . and feminists who can’t tolerate Bella’s submission of self to Edward.

Conclusion
I enjoyed the Twilight Saga while I was reading it (or rather, while I was listening to it on unabridged audio book). I am a quite a sucker for grand romantic tales of impossible love realized. But objectively, the Twilight Saga has a couple serious problems that would stop me from recommending it to anyone who might be especially susceptible to getting caught up in it all . . . which unfortunately includes most of its target audience of teen girls. I’d probably be more likely to recommend it to guys.

Will I read any additions to the series? Oh . . . probably. After all, it really is quite a rush.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PIkOwbUqWA

(view this first if you’ve never heard the commercials before)

When it is raining, it is because he is sad.

Even his parrot’s advice is insightful.

If there were an interesting gland, his would be larger than most men’s entire lower intestines.

His shirts never wrinkle.

He is left-handed. And right-handed.

Even if he forgets to put postage on his mail, it gets there.

He once knew a call was a wrong number, even though the person on the other end wouldn’t admit it.

You can see his charisma from space.

His beard alone has experienced more than a lesser man’s entire body.

His blood smells like cologne.

On every continent in the world, there is a sandwich named after him.

He doesn’t believe in using oven mitts, nor potholders.

His cereal never gets soggy. It sits there, staying crispy, just for him.

His pillow talk is years ahead of it’s time.

Respected archaeologists fight over his discarded apple cores.

He is The Most Interesting Man In The World.

One’s opinion of Prince Caspian will depend greatly on what one is expecting. If you are hoping for a line-for-line book to screen translation of C.S. Lewis’s original material, go watch the Wonderworks version. You’ll enjoy it a lot more (that’s no slight; I enjoyed those as a kid). If, on the other hand, you’d like to see a masterful expansion of the core ideas in Lewis’s book that begins to approach epic, this is a film to watch. SPOILERS follow. If you continue reading, don’t say I didn’t warn you.

Director Andrew Adamson has gotten the hang of things. While The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe strays less from the source material, Prince Caspian is a much better movie.

Adamson and his cowriters have taken many things that Lewis only hinted at and fleshed them out a great deal. Layers have been added to the political struggle between Miraz and his councilmen, as well as to the relationship between Caspian and his uncle. Also fleshed out is the ambivalence of the Narnians about backing a Telmarine prince, descendant of the Conquerer that tried to wipe them out.

Possible (or even probable) character conflicts that were not explored by Lewis are also found here. The friction between Peter and Caspian is a good example. In the book Peter comes right out and assures Caspian that he has no wish to make a play for the throne, and Caspian glibly goes through the story with no unease about four ancient monarchs jumping out of legend just when he is trying to claim his place as king.

While Lewis probably thought these attitudes and actions would serve as good role models for children, a deeper and more mature characterization has benefited the film greatly, and in the end actually emphasizes the desperate need that the Narnians have for Aslan. Because these sons of Adam just can’t seem to get anything right.

Peter is having coming-of-age issues and is understandably troubled by seeing what he considers a foreign invader claiming right to lead the Narnians. Caspian, the rightful king by Telmarine descent understandably feels slighted when he’s shunted to second place when the four Pevensies arrive, and he’s filled with a spirit of vengeance when he finds that Miraz is responsible for his father’s death. This conflict between Peter and Caspian leads to what such conflicts often do: separate agendas resulting in spoiled plans and unnecessary bloodshed.

The cinematography and pacing of the film is far superior to its predecessor. This feels like a film, and not like a random collection of scenes haphazardly strung together. The battles are more convincing, and, as I said before, approaching epic proportions. The effects are more polished. More importantly, I felt that I could connect with the characters better. They are more human and less like cardboard cutout. And not all the characters are so wayward. Lucy serves as the shining light of faith that Aslan is near, and Edmund keeps Peter from veering too far off course.

The only thing that I thought perhaps was overplayed was the attraction between Susan and Caspian. I can understand why they did it (apart from marketing value), and why it works. I was always puzzled about the asexuality of the Pevensies. It is very odd that in all of their years as adults in Narnia, none of them ever marry. If they had produced heirs like other responsible monarchs maybe their kingdom wouldn’t have been overrun by Spanish pirates when they left Narnia.

Now, for the most part, I think the relationship between Susan and Caspian is tastefully done. They are young attractive people, and so the chemistry between them isn’t exactly out of place. Also it makes for a couple great lines (like Lucy to Susan: “What was that? ‘Maybe you’ll need to call me‘?”). But then sometimes it veers off on into a celebration of Hollywood glitz and kitsch. Caspian’s rescue of Susan, while cool, does feel kind of staged.

So what about the message of the film? Is Lewis’s original vision intact? Well, while I think probably Lewis might object to a few things (such as Susan’s active involvement in the battle, though I think he would be happy with Peter and Caspian’s chivalry), the picture of Aslan as savior still shines brightly. As I mentioned earlier, the deeply human flaws we see in the characters only serve to emphasize the need for Aslan. This is no more apparent than at the How (the stone table) where the White Witch is almost brought back from the dead. It becomes very clear. These people are lost without him. Also, Aslan’s absence is felt so sharply that the film very effectively avoids a deus ex machina (the “Dude, where’d the lion come from?” effect) at the conclusion when Aslan finally appears.

Overall, Prince Caspian is a very good effort, and a satisfying film experience. Again, if you’re looking for slavish adherence to the book, you will be disappointed. But if you are open to seeing C.S. Lewis’s story enriched with a complexity not found in the book, this is a film to see. I am no longer worried about Adam Adamson at the helm of Lewis’s classic books. The director has finally figured out how to make a movie, and the series is now in good hands. If the remaining installments show the same level of improvement in movie-making quality, they will become classic films in their own right.

When Andrea sings . . . my heart melts. How could it not?

I discovered Andrea Ross rather by accident. I believe Amazon recommended her album to me several months ago after I had viewed something by Hayley Westenra. Andrea’s album had just been released exclusively in the UK, and the Amazon price tag was $45. I took a pass on it in spite of the intriguing samples I heard on her website. I saved a link, however.

Last week I was cleaning out my computer and ran across the link. Who is Andrea Ross? I wondered, and why had I bookmarked her link? That took me to her website for the second time, where I rediscovered her. This time, with the price of the album half of what it used to be, I couldn’t pass it up.

I found her voice entirely captivating, and she has a great story to go along with her sparkling persona. Andrea played the title role in Annie at age 11; at age 14 she was “16 going on 17” in The Sound of Music. When she was 13 she sent a karaoke demo tape to Andrew Lloyd Webber. That led directly to her first record contract with Universal at age 15 and a starring role in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s latest musical, Whistle Down the Wind.

Listening to her sing, one can hear immediately what Andrew Lloyd Webber recognized in her. She has a very mature vocal style for her age (or any age). Her diction is perfect, her voice has depth and richness, while losing none of its innocence. She draws on her stage acting experience, giving her delivery a varied spectrum of emotion and expression.

That would be more than enough to seal the deal as a singer, but beyond all that, Andrea also happens to be a remarkably beautiful girl. Visually, her performance absolutely glows with a tender and effortless grace. It’s a stunning combination that one doesn’t often find. I could go on about it, but I won’t. See for yourself. Check out my sidebar media player (I have 9 of her songs on the playlist) and the linked YouTube videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjRIiQAJQY

Unfortunately, Andrea’s album Moon River suffers from inconsistent recording quality and lackluster mixing and mastering. It ranges from “quite good” to “what were they thinking?”

Andrea’s voice sometimes gets lost in the mix, with the orchestra or the background choir drowning her out—not because her voice is too quiet or weak, but because the levels on her track have been inexplicably dropped relative to the other tracks. This is especially apparent in “You Raise Me Up.”

Sometimes the processing on her vocal track is tastefully subtle, allowing the listener to hear her voice as it really is (as in “Learn To Be Lonely”), and at other times a rather ugly and artificial-sounding reverb plate DSP has been applied (as in “You Raise Me Up”), which is a shame, since her voice does not need to be covered by any processing. The most I would apply to it is perhaps a very light convolution reverb DSP just to add some “real” space.

Despite its many flaws, Moon River is a more-than-worthwhile album simply because of Andrea. It is still a UK exclusive album (even though Andrea is a Boston resident), but hopefully she’ll be brought to the attention US audiences soon, especially after her US tour with Whistle Down the Wind, which finished last September.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUkCLo9I7Cg

But enough of that. I am rediscovering the film through its magnificent score by Alfred Newman. From the opening titles, the score conveys powerfully, over the course of the film running the emotional gammut of fun, adventure, struggle, loss, grief, and sorrow. It is truly an overlooked classic. It was my first favorite film score, even before I knew what a film score was.

Listening through the score and remembering scenes from the film reminds me of the incredible scope that the film had, tracing the saga of an American family through three generations. While the song featured in the film bears echoes of manifest destiny, I think the film is careful not to stereo-type the struggle between the Native American and the pioneer of the move West, portraying both sides rather fairly, if a little idealistically.

HOW THE WEST WAS WON
Lyrics by Ken Darby

Promised land the land of plenty rich with gold
Here came dreamers with Bible, fist, and gun
Bound for land across the plains their wagons rolled
Hell bent for leather that’s how the West was won

Stride by stride they tamed the savage prairie land
Nothing stopped them no wind nor rain nor sun
Side by side these pioneers from every land
All pulled together that’s how the West was won

And they sang of the day when they would rest their boots
In a land where the still waters flow
Where the dreams of a man and wife could put down roots
And their love and the seeds of love would grow
(And grow and grow)

Dream by dream they built a nation from this land
Forged in freedom for every mother’s son
Here it is the beautiful the promised land
We won’t forget them and how the West was won

Please sample a few tracks from the score in my player and then go buy the 2-Disc set if you’re impressed with it as I have always been. If you’ve already listened, check the player again. I’ve added a new track.

Main Title

First Meeting

Come Share My Life

No Goodbye

Finale

Some additional notes on the score:

How The West Was Won was awarded an Academy Award for “Best Recording,” which had a great deal to do with how Alfred Newman produced the score. It was apparently one of the first (if not the first) score recorded by close-mic’ing each individual section of the orchestra, which gives the orchestra that sense of presence, increases the scope of the recording, and allows the listener to easily distinguish between the various parts of the orchestra. Since 1962 this recording method has become commonplace for film score recording, it was very innovative at the time.

I saw Happy Feet this weekend! And I have a thing or two to say about it.

Happy Feet is a wonder of filmmaking, really. The animation is incredible. All the wonder and beauty of Antarctica is captured in each frame. From the grand expansive scenes of (I guess it would be) the Southern Lights to the monstrous arctic blizzards, every detail is beautifully rendered.

The music of the film, for the most part, is a thoroughly enjoyable experience. John Powell’s score does a good job of capturing the mood and accenting the action with exciting and interesting cues. The songs are well performed. Especially Robin Williams’ Spanish rendition of “My Way.” Speaking of which, Robin Williams’ performance is pretty funny all around.

So. From an artistic and technical standpoint, it was worth seeing. Because of the wonderful views, it was worth seeing on the big screen.

It’s too bad the story is a blatantly anti-Christian allegory. Here. I’ll break it down.

Anti-Ecclesiastical

Besides the nasty indifferent humans (aliens) who are polluting the environment and stealing all the fish from the cute little penguins, the villain of the whole set piece is the group of penguin “elders,” and particularly the oldest penguin elder, who speaks with a thick Scottish brogue and uses archaic English in his admonitions like “the Great Wind is that which giveth and taketh away.” No, I’m not kidding. He actually says that.

It seems that there has been a fish shortage recently, and the elders are baffled as to what to do about it. They conclude that rigid conformity to a religious sort of singing ritual is the answer. The Great Wind (which giveth and taketh away) must be displeased with them, so they should sing better, louder, and more religiously.

The main character, Mumbles, dropped as an egg and unable to sing, does not quite fit in. Instead of singing, he dances. This does not fit into the religious practice as prescribed by the great penguin church, and so when his influence grows he is promptly excommunicated.

This subplot is a clear attack against the organized church and the ignorance and bigotry that the all-accepting liberal secular world accuses it of. In fact, the whole eldership of the penguins is a twisted caricature of the church. One might even be tempted to think that the Scottish penguin pastor is a personal slam against John Knox.

“Non-conformity” (revolt against morality) is glorified

Mumbles is different. He can’t sing. And he does this weird little tap dance. It’s different. It must be evil, the elders conclude. “But he’s not hurting anyone!” his defenders say. No matter, he must go. Sure, the particulars of Mumbles’ different-ness is basically innocent. I enjoy tap-dancing as much as anyone. But Happy Feet is no innocent Ugly Duckling story.

With the whole story context of the penguin church and the elders’ insistence that his tap dancing is immoral, Mumbles’ non-conformity is being used to attack any moral standard in society. As if to say, “See? It is all just a matter of being different. If it’s not hurting anyone, it must be okay. There is no moral standard beyond the comfort of your peers. All these ‘differences’ are as innocent as tap dancing.”

Religion vs Science

Mumbles believes that the aliens (humans) are causing the fish shortage. The elders dismiss this as nonsense. There are no such things as aliens, and that is that. After all, “it is the Great Wind that giveth and taketh away.” All use of empirical evidence is lost on the penguin elders, so Mumbles goes off to prove that his theory is true. In the end, science trumps religion, and the elders are exposed as the ignoramuses they are. In fact, they join Mumbles in dancing for the humans.

This is a clear assault against the Biblical account of natural history. “Those stupid Christians, they think God created the universe! When all the empirical evidence indicates evolution. Imagine that.” The implication, of course, is that anyone who believes in a supreme divine Creator is as stupid and blind as the penguin elders in the film.

EDIT: Paragraph on “adulterous penguins” removed. See comments.

Conclusion

So that’s the nature of Happy Feet. It packages a poisonous anti-Christian message into a dangerously cute candy coated form and markets it to children. The included props to environmentalism and illegal immigration are relatively benign compared to what the film is really telling us. Christians should exercise great caution and lots of instruction when allowing their children to view Happy Feet.