Synopsis – Spoiler Warning

Angela Bennet (Bullock) is a hacker and system analyst for Cathedral, a large software company. Angela works entirely from her home, and her interactions with other people are limited to her Alzheimer’s stricken mother and the people on an internet chatroom. One day she stumbles upon a strange piece of code hidden in a securities program known as Gatekeeper. Before she has a chance to truly examine this, she goes off on vacation to Mexico.

It is here that she meets the seemingly charming Jack Devlin (Northam). Devlin wastes no time seducing Angela before revealing that he is a member of the Praetorians, an organization attempting to take over the world and the one responsible for Gatekeeper. Devlin then tries to kill Angela who narrowly escapes death.

When she comes to in a hospital a few weeks later she finds that her identity has been stolen and been replaced with that of a woman named Ruth Knox. Angela frantically tries to reclaim her life, only to find it blocked by Devlin and the sorid facts that he makes up about Knox and places on them internet. In desperation, Angela turns to the only person who knows her, an ex boyfriend and former therapist (Miller).

Devlin remains one step ahead. After murdering the ex-boyfriend and getting Angela set to prison (then breaking her out to toy with her), Angela finally snaps and breaks into Cathedral where she finds the real Ruth Knox pretending to be her. After some clever computer work, Angela manages to regain her identity, eliminate Devlin and Knox, and destroy the Gatekeeper program. She lives happily ever after, taking care of her mother and generally staying away from mysterious chatrooms.

Borna

The Internet is an amazing creation. Who would have guessed fifteen years ago that sites such as Youtube, Facebook, Google Earth street view, and of course Steel Bananas could exist? The answer: not Sandra Bullock in the ’95 cyber thriller The Net. Bullock plays Angela Bennett, a computer nerd who somehow stumbles upon a conspiracy bent on controlling people’s lives via the Internet. Granted, this film came out just when the Internet was starting out and for this reason there are many out-dated assumptions about what the Internet can and cannot do.

This aside, what interested me in this film is the over-projected claim that our lives are wholly determined by digital information. That is, most of us do our banking online, we buy things from amazon.com and other various sites. Nearly all of our personal information, SIN number, credit card, etc, etc exists online. This is the fear that propels The Net, the fear that our lives could be absolutely controlled by external manipulation.

I realize that we have viruses, and identity theft and so on, but we have also been able to account and prevent these problems using the very technology which creates them. Yet, what is the film trying to say? Identity theft aside, isn’t the film preying on our insecurities and fears about technology within the social setting? This makes me think of the hype about iPhones, how some are saying that sooner or later our whole lives will be dependant on one small piece of technology. Is this a correct hypothesis, or are we merely repeating the fear found in The Net?

Daniel

The Internet truly is a terrifying place. In my humble opinion, however, it has little to do with the amount of cyber crime and quite a bit to do with the depraved minds of its users. Something about this wonderful anonymity has allowed for unspeakable horrors if you go looking hard enough. In fact, most of the time, you simply stumble on some grotesque abomination. Today Angela would be more concerned about accidently stumbling onto 4chan as opposed to a secret plot to take over the world.
The Net does present us with another conundrum about the nature of identity. After stumbling upon the secret of the Praetorians, Devlin goes out of his way to steal Angela’s life and manufacture a new one.

While this seems far-fetched, it seems to work because Angela is a bit of an antisocial recluse (like most computer geeks). As it turns out, there is actually nobody in her life that would recognize her besides her asshole ex-boyfriend. However, a person does need to leave her house at some point. It is a bit disconcerting that none of her neighbours, or even her landlord can remember what she looks like.

More importantly it ultimately raises the question about what it is that makes a person unique. The film seems to suggest that we define ourselves by our interactions with other people. By stripping away those relationships, we are left with a self image that may even be surprising to ourselves.

Borna

I agree with you about the lack of recognition by her neighbors. The film seems to suggest that we have gotten to a point in Western culture, where if we live a virtual life, then our actual, real life will cease to exist. This seems to be what happens to Angela in the film. She essentially lives her life on ‘the net,’ and so even her next door neighbour does not recognize her. The utter stupidity of this aside, it has a meaning. This has to do with the film’s assumption that computer data (via the Internet) will have the last say. In one scene of the film, Angela goes to check out from her hotel, and the hotel database says she has already checked out.

Angela tries to argue with the hotel clerk and explain to him that she has not checked out, yet the clerk insists that the information on the computer is correct and final. This is rather, well, stupid. Or even out-dated. This depends on the presumption that computer information is never falsifiable, and always right, no matter what the situation. When Angela’s identity is stolen and she is given a new one, it is all done over the Internet. Again, no one takes her word for the information that is available on his or her computer screen.

This strange elevation of computer information over everything else is key in the film, yet it just goes to show how out-dated the film truly is. Today, we know that the information on computers can be false, altered and hacked.

Daniel

What seems truly odd to me is this attitude of blind trust. I don’t know anybody that simply goes along with what anybody says, even when that somebody isn’t a new and largely untested piece of technology.  Even so, we now know that identity theft is largely used to steal credit card numbers and buy all sorts of cool shit without having to pay for it.

Besides having this entire plot about the evils of modern technology, The Net also seems to have a subtext of tolerance. In what has to be one of the most bizarre subplots ever, the entire film has an “AIDS is not so bad” feel to it that you often see in afterschool specials from the early nineties. At the beginning of the film a powerful government figure takes his own life because he is homophobic and is led to believe that he has HIV. Later, Angela is able to escape from Devlin by running through a candlelight vigil for AIDS victims. Coupled with the main plotline this seems to suggest the message that the sufferers of the virus are still people, even though their identities are largely anonymous to us.

Borna

Certainly the AIDS message is very strange. Angela, trying to run away from Devlin, not only runs through the vigil, but she runs against the grain. What could this mean? Is the subliminal message of this scene that sometimes we have to stray away from conforming to social norms (i.e. public vigils) in order to unravel the greater truth (i.e. government conspiracy)? What is also interesting is the not-so subtle binary play on good vs. evil. The protagonist, Angela (i.e. Angels, God, Heaven, etc) must run away and fight Devlin (i.e. Devil, Satan, Hell, Evil, etc).

This rather lame and poor use of good and evil just goes further perpetuate the film’s commitment to the idea that technology is evil. Devlin seems to have connections everywhere, even in the FBI, whereas Angela’s own mother cannot even recognize her (thanks to the plot device of Alzheimer’s at the beginning of the movie). For once, I’d like to see a conspiracy film where the binary of good versus evil wasn’t so... well… evident. Why not throw in some grey characters? In the words of Nietzsche, "why not go beyond Good and Evil?"

Daniel

Grey characters? What kind of movie do you think this is? One that is complex and makes any lick of sense whatsoever? If there were any characters that had any streaks of grey whatsoever, we the viewing audience might get confused and be unable to tell who we should be rooting for. The Net makes it really simple for all of us. The big corporation that is attempting to take over the world using the internet is evil. The innocent hacker who is a bit isolated from the rest of society is good.

I think that at its core The Net isn’t just a conspiracy film warning us all about the dangers of new technology. It is a conspiracy film warning us all about the dangers of corporations.

Lessons Learned

• Corporations are evil and trying to take over the world.

• Social interaction will keep you from being erased from the world.

• Chat rooms can lead to anonymous sex with hitmen and identity theft.

• People who have AIDS should be accepted for who they are.

• Identity is more than just our interactions with other people.

• Never trust a guy named Devlin.

Despite all of my ramblings about the gallons of crap that Hollywood shovels on to us every month (see Trailer Trashin’) I actually love terrible movies. There is nothing quite like sitting down with a group of people and heckling the idiots on screen. It seems to give me a sense of superiority, and I like that feeling.

It occurred to me though that we do not actually absorb what we are watching when we do this, however. We watch these popcorn flicks for their entertainment value and then simply move on with our lives. Why bother to take in the valuable knowledge that could possibly be gained from the literal encyclopedia of B-films that has been bestowed to us, the viewing public? This travesty must end. Knowledge, after all, is power. I have decided to find a way to tap into this raw power source.

Every month myself, and a fellow Steel Bananas contributor will sit down and watch a film with our brains. We will not review it, but instead analyze it. By doing this perhaps we can finally harness the power of the crappy movie and use it for good.

This month I sat down with Borna Radnik to take a look at the biggest thing to hit fifteen year old girls since Miley Cyrus, Twilight. I warn you now there may be spoilers.

Synopsis

Bella Swan is a perfectly normal seventeen-year-old girl who has just moved to Washington state to live with her estranged father. Upon attending her new school she immediately fits in, but cannot help but be intrigued by the mysterious loner in her class, Edward Cullen. After Edward saves her life, Bella begins to really look into the Cullen family. After talking to her friend Jacob and Googling a whole bunch, she comes to the conclusion that Edward is a vampire. Bella confronts Edward and he confesses not only his undead secret, but also the fact that he is madly in love with her. They begin seeing each other, which eventually draws the attention of an evil tracker named James. In order to keep safe, Bella runs away from home and flees with Edward. James tracks them down and bites Bella, but he is quickly subdued by the Cullen family. Edward sucks the poison out of Bella but nearly kills her in the process. In the end they both realize that they were truly made for one another and like any good teenage movie, he takes her to the Prom.

Borna:

What can be said of the film version of Stephanie Meyer’s Twilight? Are there any social or political ideas at work in the film that can be extracted? There are a few obvious ones which I will briefly mention merely to get them out of the way: i) Bella’s relationship with her divorced parents may serve as the backdrop to the action of the film, however it can be argued that the story is much more about her (non-)relationship with her estranged father than about the ‘forbidden love’ between her and Edward (one could even go as far as to claim that the inclusion of a supernatural, immortal ‘vampire’ character as the main male in Bella’s life is meant to replace the inconsistent, mortal and sparse parental relation Bella has with her father); ii) The vampire Cullen family in Twilight can be used as a metaphor for the socio-political Other. That is to say, the socially excluded Other(s) living amongst us all the while attempting to ‘pass’ as one of us (i.e. illegal aliens, terrorist sleeper agents, any minority group trying to assimilate into the dominant culture and so on);  and iii) The eternal story of forbidden love situated in a particular socio-economic context (Middle class America, etc), and the transcending effect of love in spite of the material conditions. These three are obvious and as such I want to talk about what could be seen as the most controversial aspect in Twilight: the sparkling vampires.

Why this aspect of the film? Traditionally, vampires are portrayed as vicious, blood-sucking creatures of the night which burn to ash from the sunlight, however with Twilight, the vampires sparkle in the rays of the sun. What does this mean? Aside from Meyer wanting to create her own version of the vampire, it must be said that the sparkling vampires of Twilight do not come across as horrid monsters at all. They are simply different than everyone else (which fits into the notion of the metaphor of the Other). Let me elaborate quickly. In the film, there is no scene or shot showing the audience the horrific actions of the vampires (even the scene where James is ripped apart alive and burned happen so much in the background that it is virtually invisible) and because of this, I claim, the sparkling vampires do not symbolize unmentionable horror, but something entirely else. What they do symbolize, tells us something about the prevailing dominant ideology of the 21st Century Western society.

Daniel:

Believe it or not, I think that the infamous sparkling vampires actually do not have much of a deeper meaning behind them. Typically something that is sparkling or shimmering is meant in literature to represent something that is either magical or gay. It is true that Edward does have a magical quality about him. His physical abilities as well as the way he is able to read minds all contribute to this theory. However, I am of the belief that Stephanie Meyer is not clever enough to come up with this analogy. Traditionally vampires are portrayed as soulless, bloodsucking demons that pray on human flesh. By humanizing other aspects of their personality, Meyer was forced to change certain aspects found in the traditional vampire canon. One such aspect is the idea that vampires are allergic to sunlight. Having them sparkle was simply a convenient solution.

Much more disturbing for me was the obvious messages of lifestyle choices that Stephanie Meyer has decided to impress upon an audience of tween girls. First is the reinforcing of the belief that high school is the peak of any person’s life. Bella does the typical movie teenager thing by moving in with her estranged father and trying to make friends at a new school. Then after somehow becoming the most popular girl in the whole school, she decides to throw it all away and dedicate her life to her first teenage fling. She is so reckless in her need to abandon her new friends and family that her douchebag boyfriend nearly gets her killed several times. The other, less blatant message is the endorsement of vegetarianism. Bella is disgusted in a scene near the beginning of the film when he father orders her a hamburger from the local diner. In every subsequent scene in said diner she is shown enjoying a salad. This is a minor footnote when compared to the Cullen’s eating habit. Edward and his family identify themselves as vampire vegetarians. They do eat meat, but only from animals in the forest surrounding their home. Meyer seems to caution that all of us should adopt this lifestyle, lest we fall in love with a cow. Although I do have to say Betsy was looking tasty in more ways than one.

Borna:

You bring up the question of intent in regards to Meyer’s choice of having the vampires sparkle. I agree with you that Meyer’s intention wasn’t to get at any deeper meaning, but it served as a convenience for the plot. Despite this, I still maintain the very notion of presenting sparkling vampires (rather than have them burn up in the sunlight) can and does say something about our culture. In keeping with the post-pomo angle of Steel Bananas, the Western culture has moved beyond the grr and argh of regular vampires. That is, Meyer could not have successfully convinced her readers of the sparkling-ness of her vampires even fifteen years ago. I think this aspect has a very specific historical context and it reflects our culture in some ways.

I agree with you about the lifestyle message behind Bella’s choices in the film. Bella simply disregards all her new found friends for the mysterious Edward (portrayed very creepily by Robert Patterson, may I add…).  In the film, Bella complies to nearly everything Edward tells her to do, near the end she ends up is the hospital because the ‘veggie vamp’ couldn’t help himself while he was ‘sucking the venom’ from her arm. She nearly dies. What kind of message is this to teenage girls? “Do what your man tells you to do, even if he nearly gets you killed!” It’s like feminism never happened in Meyer’s universe. The vegetarian thing is rather annoying. Isn’t it ironic that for vampires, their vegetarianism equals to eating the meat of animals (not humans) all the while, Bella, a human vegetarian, can’t stand eating animal meat? Their dinners must be interesting: he eats deer road kill, while she enjoys a tofu salad. Both vegetarians. Also, on the topic of the Cullen family, isn’t it peculiar how nearly all of them were blond haired and blue eyed?

Daniel:

Thank god I am not the only one who finds the entire relationship shared by the whole Cullen clan a little bit creepy. However, it is not because they are the living dead. In the film the head of the family is Dr. Cullen. He is the one who believes in the ways of the ‘veggie vamp’ and has tried to pass this knowledge along to his kin. Of course, it is all very hypocritical considering he is the one who turned them all into vampires in the first place. It strikes me as an eternal indentured servitude.

Also the fact that they are all clearly Aryan is a disturbing trait. The brood are considered to be the example of the dominant species, a fact they are all too willing to rub into Bella’s face during a demonstration of America’s pastime (baseball). These issues all pale in comparison to the fact that Edward’s brothers and sisters are all dating one another. I know it is not technically incest because they were adopted, but that excuse can only fly for so long. It becomes apparent that this one big happy family is much closer than any family really should be. The irony in this is they actually look down on Edward for dating someone that hasn’t shared the same home for the past four hundred years.

Indeed, the Cullens are very protective of their own. The only type of family Twilight advocates is the dysfunctional vampiric one. The Cullens will attack any other vampires they see as a threat as well as the neighbouring tribe of Native Americans who seem to know their secret.

Borna:

There is definitely a cult mentality at work with the Cullen family, which is disturbing. Opposed to the rather Aryan family is the Black family. These are the Native Americans who hold the secret legend to the vampires—oh, and they are Werewolves. Now, I’m all for vampires versus werewolves (Underworld anyone?) but in Twilight the fact that the werewolves are Native Americans seems to just perpetuate the stereotype of the ‘mystical native culture.’ What better way to idealize and romanticize the native peoples by making them have special powers and abilities? The contrast between the Black and the Cullen family symbolizes the relationship between the conquering Europeans (the Cullens’) and the natives (The Blacks’). This contrast is further illustrated in the film when the Black family and the Cullen family lock eyes and glare at each other. There is a strong hostility there, one that seems to go back ages and ages. The Black family even asks Bella to break it off with Edward. Again, this aspect of the story was not intentional on Stephanie Meyer’s part, however it can be interpreted as such.

I’d like to reiterate that the most fascinating aspect of this film was the sparkling vampire. The alteration in the vampire mythology by Meyer can be seen as a reflection of our current post-pomo culture and its ideology.

Daniel

The most interesting thing about this film was not the sparkling vampire. The glittery ghoul only appeared on screen for about two minutes before the director wisely decided to move on from it. Yes having them glitter was an unusual choice by Stephanie Meyer, but I think people have made a mountain out of a molehill.

Besides fabulous fangs, this film is believe it or not filled with all sorts of messages on how a teenage girl should live her life. In the end though it all boils down to everything that your parents want you to do is wrong… unless they are vampires. Friends? Only if he is a vampire. Want to spend time with your family? Sure, as long as they feast on human flesh. Do you want to run away from home? It is all good if a vampire told you to do it.

This disturbing trend reminds me once and for all that “all that glitters is not gold.” It is however a brooding emo vampire that will fall in love with you and destroy your life.

Lessons Learned

1.    You should be a vegetarian in case one day you want to marry your steak
2.    Always listen to your man
3.    You can find out anything on Google
4.    The natural enemy of the vampire is the native American werewolf
5.    School is a lot more fun when you hang out with that dangerous loner
6.    Stephanie Meyer is the worst thing to happen to vampires since Anne Rice
7.    Stop showering and you will find the love of your life… and you will sparkle

Comments

• August 15, 2009, Alicia writes: I actually couldn't get through Twilight, but I loved this article. Very interesting discussion/speculation. Something else rather odd in the film is the rape undertones of Edward, particularly when he's supposedly confessing his "undying love." The whole "I never wanted to kill anything but I want to kill you" thing? Talking about how he - a murderer - can't control himself around her? To what messed up woman is that a turn on? Then apparently he starts to suck venom out of her but - again - can't control himself? I can almost hear Edward excusing himself with the disturbing "She was asking for it!" line. Creepy indeed.
• August 15, 2009, B-Rad writes: Alicia, I agree with you totally about Edward. He comes off really creepy in the film, and the whole 'I want to kill you' thing does hint of...well, violence and death. I'll admit, I haven't read the books, so I am not sure if the character is as creepy in the book as Robert Patterson makes him out to be.Thanks for the comments about the article!