The Unlikely Benefits of the 'Twilight' Plague

In the not-so-distant past, young males like myself led charmed existences wherein we were entitled exclusively to the mantle of immaturity. As our allegedly more “mature” female counterparts incessantly berated us, we nevertheless continued to indulge in the numerous tokens of our extended childhood. Comic books, video games, the occasional kung fu movie marathon- all have been repeatedly held up as proof of the intellectual inferiority of the male species, evidence of our inability to “think deeply” or be “intellectual.” Dudettes are all too eager to remind us dudes that they “reach adulthood” faster than us, and the line is repeated endlessly, starting in grade school. Those of us blessed with sisters have had our doubts as to the veracity of this claim, but not until the unmitigated success of Stephanie Meyer’s ‘Twilight’ series have we had enough proof to make our case. Having never read her books- and not possessing the faintest desire to do so- I can only speak of my mercifully limited experience with Summit Entertainment’s film franchise.

To state my reaction with specificity: ‘Twilight’ is twaddle. Malarkey. Tomfoolery. An inept attempt to revitalize the familiar teen romance blueprint by adding superficial genre elements to the same old, boring formula.

And, dare I say, the story just seemed so… shallow. Barren, even. After forcing myself at great pain to view a considerable portion of the series’ second installment on my university’s free movie channel, all I could ask myself was “Is that it?” Not only did I feel that I had just sat through a Lifetime Channel movie with an inflated budget, but I was also particularly struck by the total lack of... well… themes? Character development? ANYTHING? As someone who has spent more time watching horror/action-themed movies than I care to admit, it doesn’t bode well for a genre movie when the strongest entertainment factor is a supporting role played by Michael Sheen- the entertainment factor of which is quickly depleted as the viewer realizes “Yeah… I WOULD rather be watching ‘Underworld’ right now!” Sure, ‘Underworld’ had a cheap love story too, but the romantic elements were really just an excuse for getting vampires and werewolves tear each other apart. In ‘Twilight’, by contrast, the supernatural element is a blatant excuse for subjecting viewers to another corny teen melodrama.

But as I thought about it (not too much, mind you), there are at least a FEW elements to ‘Twilight’s’ success that we ought to find agreeable, if not commendable. Stephanie Meyer apparently knows something about what girls like to see in a guy- in a word, chivalry. Feminists just HATE that word. And when feminists hate something, I feel obliged to give it a chance. The character of Edward- played by some-guy-whose-name-I-can’t-remember-but-is now-universally-hated-by-heterosexual-males- possesses a mishmash of social attitudes that, quite frankly, young men are not taught by their society anymore.

In short, Edward 1.) wants what is best for the girl he loves, and thus resists converting her to the undead; 2.) Refuses to have intercourse before they have been bound in marriage; And 3.) he tirelessly works to PROTECT her from a hostile world. For a story with such a thoroughly bizarre plot, ‘Twilight’ is replete with underlying traditional messages like these, and if it weren’t for the intellectual arrogance of feminists in academia, they’d probably be more concerned with the number of women who seem naturally inclined towards such an archetype.

Another positive consequence of this mediocre franchise is the continued success of the production company Summit Entertainment, whose present standing in Hollywood has been built almost exclusively on the ‘Twilight’ series, and who are now looking towards aggressive expansion. What’s next for them, you ask? Why, an adaptation of ‘The Homelanders’ series by author and former movie scribe Andrew Klavan.

Lately quite active as a conservative blogger and youtuber, his unabashed love for America and Christianity got him kicked out of the Hollywood cool kids’ club years ago, and with Summit Entertainment facilitating a new film franchise based on his young adult thrillers, his ticket back to screenwriting may be forthcoming. Who knows, Summit Entertainment might well intend to use the flood of ‘Twilight’ revenue to fund a rebirth of value-centric films in Hollywood- hopefully, some that will raise the bar for the studio. Personally, I’m far too jaded to expect that much from ANYONE in Hollywood.

But I've got my fingers crossed.

*UPDATE* Check out this great blog by BigHollywood's John Nolte: http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2010/07/10/the-twilight-phenomenon-the-kids-are-all-right/

"Trust me, no one’s benefited more from left-wing feminism than those shallow, sexist men who use, abuse, objectify and discard women like empty beer cans." - John Nolte, Big Hollywood

HBO's 'For Neda' compassionate, but avoids some harsh realities

We have to at least give HBO some credit for covering a story that desperately needs to be told. Here is the story that the new documentary presents us: One year ago, the airwaves were abuzz with by-the-minute updates concerning the mounting political unrest in the Islamic “Republic” of Iran, then the arena in which hundreds of thousands of protesters had taken to the streets of Tehran and other major cities across the country. Having been made infamous in the West for its vertically-challenged anti-Semitic political leader President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s constant verbal barrage against Israel and her allies (in other words, America alone), Iran and her governing body of dictatorial Sharia has long stood against the forces of democracy, and routinely gives the cold shoulder to international non-governmental organizations seeking redress for the state’s countless human rights violations.

All this considered, the Western world in general reacted with bewilderment at the sight of hundreds of thousands of Iranian citizens standing up in protest, not against Israel, America, or other democracies, but against the regime of Ayatollah Khameini (the true, unelected ruler of Iran). At the source of this explosion of discontent was the blatantly rigged reelection of Ahmadinejad, in spite of the majority of support having been shown for presidential candidate and ex-Prime Minister Mousavi, whose supporters became outraged when the government announced Ahmadinejad’s reelection before the ballots had even been counted.

As the government became increasingly intolerant of the protests, military police were dispatched to quell the resistance, using deadly force if necessary. As the chaos spread, one of the victims, 27-year-old Neda Agha-Soltan was shot, bleeding to death on the street as her friends tried in vain to save her. Caught on camera, her death became a rallying point for the anti-Khameini movement, her story finally becoming so central to the resistance that the government initiated a wave of propaganda accusing her of being a CIA operative, an actress, and countless other allegations which have fallen flat except among the most fervent of Khameini-supporters. Her family was prohibited from mourning, and the government saw to it that they would be unable to bury her according to their religious tradition. Soon her face became a symbol of what many saw as a coming revolution- and still do, as the documentary’s conclusion makes clear.

The filmmakers devote considerable time to fleshing out Neda as an individual, an ordinary young woman, rather than as the symbol she has become for the so-called Green Movement for democratic Iranians. Her family is interviewed extensively, and each of her family members is granted time in turn to reflect upon their lost daughter and sister. What emerges is the image of a free-thinking, assertive young lady whose conscience led her to the rejection, not only of the corruption in the government, but in her educators' views of almighty God. Having possessed a deep faith in the divine, she had at first taken interest in courses covering Islamic religious law at her university, but quickly dropped out of the program. Some interviewees remember her explaining that the God she had come to know was "compassionate" and "merciful", not wrathful and prone to fits of rage against humanity like she was being taught in class. The film devotes precious little time to the examination of Neda’s personal religious identity, and viewers are left wondering from what source her convictions originated. From there, a portrait is painted of a girl who loved to dance, to be with her family, to speak her mind, and dreamed of travelling the world.

As the film concludes, the experts gathered by the filmmakers make final remarks about what they see as the coming revolution in Iran. As one woman asserts, “It’s over. It will take time but it’s over.” … Ok. In other words, she has no idea what is going to happen. Her statement alone is demonstrative of the odd naiveté on display from the “experts” in general, who all seem to come to the unlikely conclusion that the negative attention generated by Neda’s murder in the world media will somehow lead to the gradual demise of the Islamic “Republic.” Painful as it is to admit, the would-be revolutionaries of last summer’s protests are now deep in hiding, fearful of the latest brutal crackdown on political dissention (read about it here: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/inside-iran-underground-opposition-year-deadly-protest/story?id=10953946).

Furthermore, knowing full well the political slant HBO has given their films in the past, it would not be much of a stretch to suppose that this gushing optimism over the prospects for democratic victory in Iran is nothing but an attempt to distract viewers from a fact that, one year ago, was painfully obvious: When the military police were unleashed on the protesters, the United States government under President Obama did nothing. Sure, you might argue, he made a political statement- when pressured. But a general statement of dissatisfaction from Barack Obama’s mouth means nothing to the Iranian leaders who know full well that his is not an ideology that would permit action that would actually threaten them, leaving them free to oppress their people at their leisure. True, a clear plan of action at the time was nonexistent. But it is nonetheless true that someone in the West- land of democracies, birthplace of liberty- ought to have taken a stand.

But more painful, and even more obvious in hindsight, is that our president probably WOULD have been pressured into taking a stand- until the death of Michael Jackson. As a pro-democracy movement was beaten back by a dictatorial regime in a manner reflective of the repression in Eastern Europe decades ago, America was too busy mourning a dead pop star to care. Had HBO seen fit to observe these obvious facts, ‘For Neda’ would have had firmer ground to stand on.

Neda's story and those like it will remain of the utmost importance to free men and women everywhere. Hers was not an unusual fate in the eyes of history, but the norm. Tyranny thrives today as in ages past, and as has been the case for millennia, those who yearn for liberty face an uphill battle.

Appeal to Heaven.

Obama: CEOs Suck, So Boycott Oil

REPORTER: Have you spoken directly to Tony Hayward, the CEO of BP?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have not spoken to him directly and here's the reason. Because my experience is when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO, he's going to say all the right things to me. I'm not interested in words. I'm interested in actions.

WILLY WONKA: After all, we have so much time and so little to do! Wait. Strike that- reverse it.

There it is, in black and white: The reason that President Obama has taken so long to sit down with BP CEO Tony Hayward- who, as head of not only the responsible party, but also the party whose resources are clearly the best equipped to handle the oil spill, ought to have been number one on Obama’s schedule- is due to the simple fact that the president just doesn’t like CEOs. There are a number of questions to address in response to what is a clear display of Obama’s bizarre political convictions: Just who is “like” a CEO, anyway? A businessman? A rich man? A private citizen whose company provides employment to several thousand people? (No thanks to the stimulus, thank you very much.)

The liberal prejudice towards the oil industry is no great secret, and thus this arrogant behavior, tactless as it was for a president speaking to the press, comes as anything but a surprise. True, he didn’t pull a James Cameron and accuse BP of being nothing but a pack of hopeless morons, but his disdain for the oil provider was evident enough- a disdain which, shared by most of the American people at this juncture, is hardly objectionable in and of itself. What proves more objectionable is the source from which the present Commander-In-Chief derives his particular brand of loathing. Turning back the clock a year or so, Obama didn’t object to the corporation's estimated $77,000 in campaign contributions over the course of his short political career- estimates which make Obama the biggest recipient of BP’s voluntary contributions in the last two decades. Predestined divine justice for the company? If the thought brings you satisfaction, I suppose so.

Unfortunately, much of the public at large has responded in like manner, with many drivers openly boycotting BP gas stations as a political statement of supposed solidarity with the affected residents of the Gulf Coast. BP gas station owners have been hit hard as they feel the weight of this allegedly compassionate protest. At my own place of employment, I have overheard coworkers angrily discussing this very topic, expressing nothing less than a potent hatred for the oil giant (No mention of the idiotic environmental policies which have forced oil workers to drill ever more dangerously far offshore in the first place, but that’s a separate issue). The conventional wisdom seems to be that hurting BP- including those they employ at gas stations across the country- will somehow result in a positive effect on the gulf.

In words of the immortal Gene Wilder, “WRONG, SIR!!”

I’m no expert in the economy, the oil industry, or in the causes and remedies of the country's ongoing unemployment problem, but you don’t need any credentials in those areas to expect, within a reasonable margin of error, that 1.) boycotting a large gasoline provider 2.) with employees in the upper tens of thousands 3.) in the middle of what some have called the worst recession since the Great Depression will cost possibly THOUSANDS of people to lose their once-secure jobs at BP and find themselves desperate for new employment, which they are less likely to find if economic woes persist. So much for compassionate boycotts, huh?

“So shines a good deed in a weary world", I guess...

Red Dawn in Red China

Besides the reelection of Ronald Reagan, 1984 goes down in history as the year that saw the release of the first ever PG-13 movie, the cult classic ‘Red Dawn’. Via Wikipedia, nineties-born folks like myself can read how, upon its release, the film was considered the most violent to date, and has since been recognized by columnists at National Review for its depictions of American youths courageously resisting a communist invasion. Despite what sounds like a heavy plot, many would argue that the film’s greatest appeal- or most evident weakness, depending on your perspective- is its blatantly cheesy portrayal of such a potentially dark adventure.

The advent of WWIII!? Russians and their Central American allies breaching the American borders to wreak havoc in an unsuspecting American town!? Teenagers forced to abandon their childhood bliss of football games and lovers’ lanes in favor of organizing an insurgency in defense of their liberty!? Sounds like a recipe for a depressing thriller a la Hart’s War if considered soberly. But in a time when the fears of Soviet aggression were all too real in the Cold War-stricken America outside the theater, perhaps the filmmakers felt obliged to provide moviegoers with a dose of much-needed escapism.

While we can never know what impact the movie could have had as a potential gritty, action drama, the choice to take a lighter tone would seem to have paid off in the long run, as the gods of Hollywood have chosen to smile upon a remake by long-time stunt coordinator and directorial newbie Dan Bradley. Due for release on November 24, the new film will focus not on the old Cold War plotline, but on a military-economic assault coordinated by a coalition of Chinese and Russian forces. One has to wonder how such a script could survive the vitriolic anti-Americanism of modern Hollywood. Interestingly enough, the first sharp criticism seems to be emanating from Red China herself.

Chinese state-run newspapers are reportedly complaining of the suspicion that such a film would cast on the so-called “People’s Republic”. The perception is that the American citizenry is prone to paranoia in regards to the Chinese agenda, and that ‘Red Dawn’ will aggravate those feelings. This is the second time in recent memory that China’s reaction to an American film has received attention in the press, the other being Roland Emmerich’s ‘2012,’ in which Chinese troops are portrayed as protagonists, if only briefly.

As it has grown into an ever-more influential presence on the world stage, the Chinese state has seen a proportional rise in political sensitivity in regards to the country’s portrayal in media around the world, of which ‘Red Dawn’ is only the most recent example. The Chinese oligarchy has, of course, become accustomed over the last several decades to stamping out political dissidents among their own citizenry however small the offense, so it does not exactly come as a surprise that they would seek to shame the “insensitive” American agitators for their “reckless” depiction of Chinese movie villains. But if the Chinese want to avoid American paranoia, pointing fingers at the free media is the last thing they should do.

Americans have grown accustomed to anti-American rhetoric not only from abroad, but from our citizens, our elected officials, our president’s czars, and, to the disappointment of many a voter, from the Commander-In-Chief himself. Conservative Americans have gotten used to fighting critics not by attempting to shut them down, but by forming logical counter-arguments and peaceful, if heated, discussions. We should not expect such an inherently democratic logic to spring forth from the mind of a Chinese communist just because they wish to claim the mantle of modernity.

If China really wants to quell our anxiety in regards to their agenda on the world stage, that very arena will afford them an opportunity in the coming week as Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pays them a diplomatic visit to discuss the threat of UN sanctions. As reported at Breitbart.com (read the article here: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.91bd23e2c5fc004cdd77440e9dc6ec94.7f1&show_article=1) , China’s status as a permanent member of the UN Security Council gives it the power to veto resolutions against the Islamic “Republic”.

Such a decision by the Chinese state would do more to damage relations between our two nations than a hundred Red Dawns.

Peace Activists, Terrorists, and DINOSAURS!!

In the wake of the confrontation between Israeli soldiers and a boatload (pardon the pun) of violent anti-Israeli Islamist “peace activists”, the UN and our dear leader have come together to condemn the Jewish State for an "inappropriate response".

In other news, Lindsay Lohan likes to party!

Let’s look at the facts: As the flotilla neared the blockade of Gaza- from which about 10,000 missiles have been lobbed towards Israeli cities in the last eight years- the Israeli navy made radio contact urging the activists to halt their advance. What response did they get? “Go back to Auschwitz.” “Remember 9/11.”

Classic flower child!

From there, Israeli troops boarded the vessel with the firm intention of searching its cargo. And, in keeping with the handy dandy Islamist peace activist handbook, the passengers responded by charging the soldiers and bludgeoning them with anything and everything that wasn’t nailed down, from metal pipes to chairs, as this video shows: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYjkLUcbJWo

Was this a deliberate attempt to provoke the Israelis and draw an international media frenzy? Let’s see if name-dropping can point us in the right direction: Bill “Weather Underground” Ayers. Bernadine “Down-With-Capitalism” Dohrn. International activist organizers Code Pink (aka the “Marines Are Murderers” Club).

And let’s not forget the video showing these peaceful activists singing their favorite campfire tune, “Kahybar, Khaybar, Oh Jews, The army of Muhammad will return!”, referencing the battle which extinguished the remaining Jewish presence in Arabia. To modern Jihadists, “Khaybar” invokes the killing of Jews and seizing their property for Muslims- yes, an Islamic battle cry from the mouths of a would-be humanitarian vessel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3L7OV414Kk

Hmmm… Martyrdom, or reaching Gaza… Nah, I'm sure they had peaceful intentions.

Sadly, this whole fiasco recalls the incident in which Mr. Obama called out the Cambridge Police Department for what turned out to be a completely imagined offense against an academic who, in all likelihood, provoked the (justified) arrest. If only this case were just as harmless.

And now we even have Helen Thomas of the WH Press Corps coming out of the closet as the worst kind of anti-Israeli ideologue: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14&feature=player_embedded .

Back to Germany! Back to Poland! Of course, why didn’t we think of that? Thanks so much for your insight Helen, we’d be lost without you.

Thus has a mere soundbite confirmed what paleontologists could only theorize before:

Anti-Semitism killed the dinosaurs!!