Sunday, September 25, 2011

Why True Blood is Better than Twilight

"Oh, brood and swoon I will love her forever!  But she also wants to do some werewolf guy.  Woe is me!"  And then there's the chick, "zomg my life sucks because I want to love this vampire guy forever, but I also kinda dig dark meat, so I don't know if I want to do vampire dude or fuck the dog guy.  Brood!"
Now, normally in life these sort of situations would be charged with emotion.  The only emotion these retards seem to express is some sort of brooding, woe-is-me bullshit.  It's so childish and adolescent that it makes me want to puke my fucking guts out.  As fate would have it, this movie seems to attract men and women of all ages which is sad, because that means there are millions of people out there who are too desensitized to shitty film-making to realize that the emotional level of the whole damn thing is akin to a 16 year old girl who can't decide whether to fuck the bad-boy outcast or the football captain.

Allow me to compare the acting in this film to another film.  I watched X-Men: First Class this weekend, and I must say I was very, very satisfied after having watched it.  Michael Fassbender is the acting center-piece of the whole film.  When you watch him on the screen as Magneto, you truly get the sense that he is a main who is tortured by his past.  You feel his pain seething inside him, and you truly get the sense that his rage and vengefullness have blackened his heart forever.

Yet he's simultaneously charismatic and warm to some people.  You really do believe the friendship between he and Charles Xavier.  Compare Fassbender's performance to Kristin Stewart's on Twilight, and you'll see that one of the actors is simply in an entirely different league.

Enter HBO's True Blood.  This is a vampire show that pulls no punches about the nature of the creatures we know as vampires.  As I've mentioned in a previous post, the show is incredibly gritty.  There's a lot of murder and blood, and there's sex around every corner.

But that's the point: vampires are supposed to be creatures who, at the core of their nature, are violent and sexual.  They represent everything that lies deep within the human psyche, the urges that we know are inside of us but those that most people are able to restrain or supress altogether.  Why do we suppress those urges and desires?  Because we know that there are negative consequences attatched to them.  Vampires don't have those consequences attatched.  Because of the powers in their mythos, they're able to act with near impunity.  Vampires are humans without boundaries, and that's what True Blood tries to portray.

Sure, we could say that the two series are trying to accomplish different things, but they're close enough that we can still compare them.  Both stories involve some sort of love interest shit, love triangles, confused emotions and whathaveyou.  The difference is that Twilight places that situation within the context of a sort of "clean" love, or "true" love, love that seems to transcend sexuality.  But True Blood portrays love in all its messiness.  It doesn't ignore the fact that sexuality, desire, and hunger, often taint that fickle emotion we call love.


Harrison said...

Twilight... never understood the point. It's like Vampire Ambercrombie and Fitch with some gay thrown in.

Silverfiddle said...

I don't understand it either, Harrison.

Must be a generational thing...

Harrison said...

Interview with a Vampire started this whole homo-erotic vampire movie thing. I think it's just stupid. Queen of the Damned was just ahead of its time I guess!

D Charles QC said...

Neither are to the quality of Ann Rice or Bramstoker - thus I simply do not bother to watch.