| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Joe Blevins 
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
 Posted - 01/06/2008 : 23:46:12
|
Roger Ebert, incidentally, has named Juno his favorite movie of 2007. In his review, he declares that the movie has "no wrong scenes." As I said, I feel the movie hits any number of false notes along the way, but I wonder how even hardcore Juno fans can defend the scene which takes place outside the abortion clinic.
In this whimsical universe, instead of a mob of angry adult protestors waving pictures of aborted fetuses and screaming Bible passages, there is just one protestor: a girl named Su-Chin. She is about Juno's age, and they are apparently classmates. Juno has a definite "cutesy-poo" motif going on (cutesy-poo songs, cutesy-poo credits, cutesy-poo props like Juno's hamburger phone), and the movie even manages to come up with a "cutesy-poo" abortion protestor. With her oversized glasses and high-pitched baby voice, Su-Chin is presented as almost a cartoon character come to life. She mindlessly repeats a slogan about how all babies want to get "borned." Since Su-Chin has no problem with pronouncing the word "fingernails" in this same scene, why can't she say "born" properly? What sort of note is being struck here? Is Su-Chin not too bright, or does she not speak English that well? If it's the latter, is this a not-so-subtly racist comment on Su-Chin's ethnicity? In any event, she hardly seems to be in a position to lecture anyone on anything. Notice, too, that no reference to fundamentalist Christianity is made here. That just wouldn't be whimsical, after all. True to life, yes, but not whimsical.
The movie then takes us inside the abortion clinic, where the receptionist behind the counter is a dead ringer for Medusa in Clash of the Titans. The movie goes for cheap irony here by having the receptionist say that the clinic trusts women and then immediately makes Juno prove that she's unarmed and not carrying any bombs. (Haw, haw! Guess she's not so trusting after all, huh, Juno?) With her dyed hair, multiple piercings, and surly slacker attitude, the receptionist is definitely NOT cutesy-poo or whimsical. Uh-oh! And here's the kiss of death: the receptionist seems to have an active and enjoyable sex life. (Bad news, Juno! Better get out of there!) So here's how Juno breaks down the abortion debate: the human equivalent of Tweety Bird on one side, and the demon slut from Hell on the other. Is it any wonder Juno sides with Tweety Bird? Wouldn't you? Having decided to keep the baby, Juno congratulates herself as being "selfless," and then the the script has Jennifer Garner repeat that exact same term later in the film. Does this mean that a teenage girl who gets pregnant and has an abortion is just being selfish?
Now, I understand that Juno, like Knocked Up is not about the abortion issue and that if the main character had an abortion, the movie would be about 15 minutes long. I'm just saying that the screenplay introduces the abortion theme and then deals with it in a false, superficial way which is emblematic of how the screenplay deals with just about everything.
Take the minor but not insignificant character of Bleeker's mother, for example, who disapproves of her son's involvement with Juno. In order to make her instantly unsympathetic, the movie makes her overweight and then has Juno make a joke about the mother's weight and appearance. The script has the mother condemn Juno by saying, "She's just... different!" Having the mother use the word "different" as a term of condemntation is the laziest possible way of branding her as a narrow-minded conformist who stands in direct opposition to our gal, the free-spirited and righteous Juno. It's as if the movie is saying, "Boo! That mean old fat lady doesn't like people who are different!"
I also had to cringe a little during the scene with the ultrasound technician. It took me a few seconds to realize that we're supposed to be CHEERING for Juno's stepmom here. "How dare that naughty ultrasound lady imply that an unwed teenage mother isn't the ideal person to raise a child? Boo! Give her hell, Juno's stepmom!" Isn't it possible -- just POSSIBLE, mind you -- that this woman who comes into contact with pregnant women all the time (including pregnant teenage girls like Juno) might have something worthwhile to say about this subject? Isn't it possible she might have some unique insight into the topic? Apparently not, the movie says. She's just there to be another cardboard villian like Bleeker's mom and the abortion clinic receptionist. Would it help if she had some cutesy, endearing personality quirks? That seems to be a sure sign of goodness in this movie.
I could go on -- especially about the problematic characters played by Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner -- but maybe I should save that for another rant. |
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 01/07/2008 00:09:26 |
 |
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/07/2008 : 02:27:32
|
Yeah, boy, is that ultrasound scene ever a piece of shit. I guess they were trying to sell it as a mom standing up for a daughter who's in a difficult situation and doesn't need any more judgment in a world that's all too ready to heap it on her.
But that's a different movie entirely. Now that I think about it, yes, I do think I remember seeing hints of uncertainty and doubt in Juno's eyes in one (and only one) scene, the one where she breaks the news to Bleeker. But those emotions hardly have anything to do with anything. I think there's many things to like about this movie, but it's about many things, and the difficulty of being pregnant and 16 is not one of them. She doesn't have to deal with disappointed parents, disapproving peers, a damaged relationship with her boyfriend, a judgmental world, difficulties with schoolwork, new heavy responsibilities, guilt for getting yourself in this situation -- I can't imagine an actual pregnant teen would have that much use for this film.
Now, I want to point out that my dissent is actually kind of mild. I did like this movie in a lot of ways, but if I had to rewrite it, not only would I scrub some of the quirk off it, I would redirect the movie away from the main character entirely. I did not give one shit about her relationship with her parents, or with Bleeker, or her decision to keep the baby, or any of it. What did interest me, quite a bit in fact, is the awkward love triangle that emerged between the married couple and Juno. That's an interesting character dynamic, one I haven't ever seen explored -- the unacknowledged attraction between the too-cool-for-school teenaged surrogate mom and the former rocker uncomfortable with prospective fatherhood and yuppiedom and aging, the unsuspecting wife who wants so achingly sincerely to be a mom, the teen from a broken home who has so much respect for the cool married couple who seems to have it all. This is the only part of the movie that at all feels fleshed out and interesting, and that is in large part where I think the focus should have been aimed. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 01/07/2008 06:59:45 |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 01:26:24
|
My problem with the Jennifer Garner/Jason Bateman storyline was that it went too far into turning Garner into a saint and Bateman into an irredeemable creep late in the game. Juno took the same unfortunate turn as Being John Malkovich: "Hey, we're about 75% of the way through the plot, and our movie doesn't have a bad guy so let's turn the horny married guy into one." We're supposed to know that Bateman is beyond redempion when he plans to move into... A LOFT! (Has he no shame?) I think he was lucky to get out of that marriage alive. Hopefully he'll get his testicles back in the divorce settlement.
The beatification of Garner, meanwhile, is complete when we see her holding the baby in her arms and we're supposed to think, "Awww, what a great mother she's going to be." I was thinking, "That poor kid! Just his luck to be adopted by a grade A whackjob!" Garner's character seemed to have some massive self-worth issues. I think there's a vast emptiness in her life because she doesn't respect herself, and she thinks that having a baby will somehow magically fix that and make her a "worthwhile" person. She seems to have a very sick mentality of "if I'm not a mother, I'm nothing," and the movie should have called her on this. But instead, it CELEBRATES this sad philosophy. During Garner's first meeting with Juno, *she* is the one who creeped me out, not Bateman, by insisting what a natural-born mother she is. Had I been Juno or her father, that would have set off alarm bells in my mind. She seemed like she was five minutes away from either kidnapping a neighbor's kid or getting a bunch of cats and dressing them in baby clothes. No wonder their previous adoption deal fell through. That mother must've have wised up. Too bad Juno didn't. How can Garner love someone else if she doesn't love herself first? I'd like to check up on her character in a few years. I bet her life resembles Mommie Dearest by that point. (Garner, like Joan Crawford, keeps a spotless house, let's not forget.)
By the way, that bit with the handwritten note ("If you're still in, I'm still in") was one of many cornball "heartwarming" touches that made me want to gag on my popcorn. Same goes for having the story begin and end with a chair, as noted in Juno's oh-so-precious narration. I think the "chair" thing was Diablo Cody's self-conscious, cloying attempt to work a framing device into her screenplay, a la Forest Gump's feather. It felt tacked-on and gratuitous to me, but if you took away all the tacked-on and gratuitous elements of the screenplay you'd be left with a short subject.
A side note about the "adoption audtion" scene: this is one of many scenes in the movie which felt overwritten and emotionally false to me. Screenwriter Diablo Cody essentially handles this scene like something from a Marx Brothers movie. In just about every Marx comedy, there's a scene in which Groucho goes into a room full of stuffy snobbish people and starts making bawdy, insulting wisecracks to deflate the situation. Well, Juno essentially does the same thing here. The other actors in this scene have the thankless task of playing the Margaret Dumont role. This is another time which Cody's screenplay unwisely substitutes schtick for honest, genuine human emotion.
I think America is being hoodwinked by this movie. Juno takes a devastating social issue -- teenage pregnancy -- and turns it into the kind of "quirky," whimsical, heart-warming, faux-"hip" hackwork that tricks you into thinking you've seen something entertaining and poignant, when all you've actually seen is a collection of manipulative gimmicks. My prediction is that it will age very poorly indeed.
One more thing: a lot of critics are comparing this to Ghost World, but I think if that movie's main character, Enid, saw Juno she'd be the first to call this movie on its bullshit. |
Edited by - Joe Blevins on 01/12/2008 01:27:37 |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 01:45:56
|
I think the movie is far more even-handed on the Jason Bateman/Jennifer Garner thing than you make it out to be, Joe. Look on the IMDB boards and you'll find lots of people who think the film took Mark's side. Mark is the cool one whose dreams are being stifled by Vanessa's fanatical dreams, after all, and the film clearly is trying to make Vanessa look a little crazy; she doesn't become a sympathetic character until later in the movie.
Furthermore, I think you're way being unduly harsh on Vanessa. Vanessa will probably be a stifling, overmothering mother, but there are far worse ways to be brought up in this world and nobody's perfect. It'd be happier if there were also a loving father in the equation, but I'm not going to knock it for its optimism.
"Ghost World" is indeed one of the movies I'd recommend to cut through "Juno"'s bullshit; the other is "Rushmore," which stylistically "Juno" plunders shamelessly. The kids in "Ghost World" and "Rushmore" have problems and don't have all the answers, which is very much not true of "Juno" very much at all. |
|
|
|
Joe Blevins
"Don't I look handsome?"
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 03:07:15
|
I respect your opinion, MBI, but I must disagree with you here.
I don't think the movie is even-handed at all in handling the Bateman/Garner storyline -- quite the opposite. The movie is unabashedly on Garner's side, and doesn't even give Bateman a chance to defend himself. Look at how these characters exit the movie and how the movie treats them at the end of their respective character arcs.
Garner's last scene shows her in a chair (not just any chair either, but a symbolic, tying-the-whole-movie-together chair no less!) cradling her infant son. This is the ideal picture of motherhood that we as human beings are HARD-WIRED to respond to positively. In fact, the way the shot is framed and lit, it was impossible for me not to think of artistic depictions of the Virgin Mary & Child. Garner is a Mary-figure in a way: she has an infant son without having to sully herself with sex. When I said that the movie "beatifies" Garner, I meant that LITERALLY. It makes her into a saintly figure. Our last glimpse of her is like something out of a holy card.
And what's the opposite of beatification? Demonization, i.e. exactly what the screenplay does to Jason Bateman's character. Think of the final scene between Juno and Mark: Vanessa arrives home; Juno comes up from the basement all upset; Vanessa wants to know what happened; and then Mark comes up -- all flustered and red-faced, looking guilty. The scenario is very much like something out of Dateline NBC's "To Catch a Predator," thus vaguely casting Mark as a child molestor. He's not just hitting on an adolescent but a PREGNANT one at that. How much more damning could the scene be? I don't think it's any coincidence that Mark's disgraceful downfall takes place in a basement -- the dark, dank space below the ground, the part of a house most likely to contain shameful secrets -- while Garner's character is associated with light, airy spaces throughout the movie.
I think the movie has an aversion to sex in general and a horror of the male sex drive in particular. I've already discussed the abortion clinic scene, in which a sexually-active receptionist is portrayed in a very negative light. (Juno repeatedly says she doesn't know what the term "sexually active" even means.) The movie's two positive MALE characters -- Bleeker and Juno's dad -- are essentially complacent eunuch-types. Note that having sex was Juno's idea, not Bleeker's, and their apparently first and only coupling has life-changing results and is obviously not repeated. Bleeker and Juno have learned their lesson by movie's end: they're engaging in folk song duets instead of sex. I think it's telling that Mark becomes a villain at the point in which he cannot contain his libido. There is very little evidence of physical affection between Mark and Vanessa, leading me to guess that sex between them was sparse or non-existent. The other characters blab on and on about how Mark won't "grow up," but his real sin -- the one that makes him a demon in the Juno world -- is that he can't control his sex drive.
But getting back to how characters exit the movie, because I feel this really cements how Diablo Cody's screenplay truly feels about Mark as a character. The scene that pegs Bateman as a villain who hasn't learned his lesson (and may never learn) is the one in which he and Garner discuss their divorce plans. The script calls for Bateman to be cocky and insensitive here, a bratty and sullen child rather than a mature responsible adult like Garner. Mark brags how trendy their divorce arrangements are and then can hardly contain his enthusiasm about moving into a loft. Garner chastises him for this, but -- just as in the previous post-basement confrontation scene -- Bateman is at a loss for words. He does not and CAN NOT defend himself. The script doesn't let him. Garner gets the last word. Then Juno's hand-written note arrives, and Bateman stupidly thinks it's a bill from Juno. Garner snatches it away from him. The message is clear: dumb man, wise woman. And THAT is how Jason Bateman exits the movie. Not so even-handed, in my opinion.
As for what kind of mother Vanessa will be, I stand by my assertion that her self-opinion is very low and that she is using this baby to compensate for that. She's a neurotic mess. A responsible, truly wise movie would admit that Vanessa is not ready to be a mother until she learns to respect herself first. I wasn't kidding when I compared this movie to Mommie Dearest. I think Joan Crawford (or the "Joan Crawford" of the movie) suffers from a similar delusion: I hate myself, but maybe if I receive unconditional love from a child I will feel better about myself and maybe others will like me better.
|
|
|
|
GHcool
"Forever a curious character."
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 05:29:24
|
Joe Blevins, I never thought about the movie that way until reading your post. Thank you for providing me with an alternative point of view. I agree with most of what you wrote, however, I don't follow all of the evidence you bring up to the same conclusions you came to. This makes me love Juno even more than I already did because it provides for multiple interpretations, all equally valid.
I do not see Mark as a "villain" in the piece. I see him as a weak man who made a mistake by marrying Vanessa. It is a tribute to the actors that from the first time we see the couple together, I already got the feeling that Vanessa and Mark were not in a "match." To me, Mark was a tragic character. He earned my sympathy as much as he earned my criticism, but I would say the same for Vanessa for not knowing how to talk to him in a way that he will listen.
In the scene where Vanessa is choosing colors for the baby room and Mark is clearly disinterested, I was actually on Mark's side. I imagine that if Mark talked to Vanessa about music and horror movies in the way that he talked to Juno about them, she would be equally disinterested. It isn't Mark's fault that Vanessa is obsessed with having a baby. One could argue that Vanessa drove Mark away, and therefore she is the "villain" of the two.
Personally, I believe both are to blame for the divorce. The only reason I think Vanessa is a better person than Mark is because she can follow through on her dreams and Mark can't. As Vanessa says, Mark will never be Kurt Cobain (at least not while he's married to her), but she can follow her dreams with or without him. Which, again, is both a virtue and a vice. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby 
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 09:09:19
|
You know, guys, there's another way to look at all this. Namely, that because a film posits versions of social reality doesn't mean it necessarily agrees with them.
I think Joe Blevins makes some accurate observations about the characters, their motivations, their personal developments [or not].
But because the screenplay is so much better than most comparable films, I've interpreted it as a reflection back to us of the ever-increasing assumptions we make.
I think every scene contributes to this and that the film's saying, look, here are some of the ways we tend to pigeon-hole such issues but maybe we should look at them again.
To re-evaluate for example the easy assumption that just because someone says they want a baby that gives them an automatic right to one without properly assessing themselves - and whether wanting is a compensation for not-being-able-to-have and/or an obsession which blinds them to the reality of their own maturity/competence and their situation.
It raises such questions as why an intelligent young woman, trying to establish her place within a fractured family which is somehow coping - why she's so ill-prepared for the possibility of/consequences of experimental sex.
Lots more examples, but the point is that just because a work of art raises such questions does not mean it's pushing that agenda as its own. I believe it's asking you to do some work, to pick up the gauntlet as you may/may not be able to relate it to your own pov/choices.
As the late, great Lenny Bruce used to remind us: a knowledge about syphillis isn't an instruction to go out and get it.
|
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 10:34:19
|
quote:
chastises him for this, but -- just as in the previous post-basement confrontation scene -- Bateman is at a loss for words. He does not and CAN NOT defend himself.
I read that as a cheap shot which Mark didn't feel like responding to. I really think it's a misinterpretation to say it demonizes Mark, although it does present him as a flawed human being and is, indeed, uninterested with what happens with him after he exits Juno's life. The fact that he is flawed is what makes him, and his wife, far more interesting to me than Juno herself.
As for Vanessa's dream of being a mom, I think you are trying too hard to demonize her. Just because the movie shares her joy doesn't mean she's been sainted. Her dream is to be a mom; that's not a bad dream, in my opinion, and especially for someone who loves kids as much as she did, I don't feel like her enthusiasm is unjustified. I really can't share your analysis that she's too neurotic to raise a child. |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian 
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 01:49:45
|
Juno
I saw this tonight and loved it. I thought all the main characters avoided stereotyping and agree with those who feel that Juno successfully carries off her sharp dialogue, and also her ability to detach herself from her situation. While teenage pregnancy is a serious issue, it is not nowadays life-destroying or hidden away, and thus there would not be the slightest point in a film featuring more typical characters in this situation. And yes, to answer Joe, I do think Juno is being selfless, although the film does not take an anti-abortion stance.
Joe makes good points about most of the minor characters, although for me this wasn't a disadvantage for the film. The most annoying thing of the whole film was Su-Chin saying "borned". I think this was to mark her as no match for (and thus no influence on) Juno rather than casual racism, but it would have been better without it. However, I found bizarre Joe's comment that it was strange that the protest didn't have a fundamentalist religious aspect to it (unless he means that there would be this element outside every abortion clinic in America) - people can quite easily be opposed to abortion without being religious.
The adoptive couple are definitely presented in a balanced way. The guy is the initially likeable one who lets himself down by getting into the adoption process when he really wants to leave his wife - this is shown as a negative point about him, but not a damning one. The woman is less sympathetic at first, but it is clear that she is professionally successful and has been driven desperate by childlessness. This does not mean that she is an inadequate person who doesn't love herself - rather, it's probably the most realistic aspect of the whole film. She is shown in the mall as being able to play with another's child lovingly, i.e. has not been consumed with envy and bitterness. While I agree that there is indeed no such thing as a right to have children, this makes it clear that she will probably be fine as a mother.
I agree that Juno getting pregnant in the first place is one of the most unrealistic things, due to her character's detachedness and planning. Bleeker says something like "Where is it?", which I took to mean the condom, but Juno doesn't reply. Perhaps she subconsciously wants to get pregnant or something. Or perhaps the film-makers realised that didn't make any sense and so just glossed over it. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 02/10/2008 : 20:55:43
|
quote:
However, I found bizarre Joe's comment that it was strange that the protest didn't have a fundamentalist religious aspect to it (unless he means that there would be this element outside every abortion clinic in America) - people can quite easily be opposed to abortion without being religious.
Yeah, but in the real world, only the religious go so far as to protest abortion clinics.
The reason the protestor is an insulting racial stereotype rather than a real religious person is Cody wants some wiggle room on the pro-life/pro-choice label. If the protestor were in any way connected with reality, someone you had to afford at least a modicum of respect to as a real person, this movie would be definitively pro-life. But with an idiot Chinese girl, you don't have to take her or her viewpoints seriously, even though she did sway Juno's decision.
Going way back to Blevins's comments, I think the central flaw in his analysis is that the movie is in no way about male sexual urges. Mark's attraction to Juno isn't physical in any way, it's a personal connection, or at least that's what it seems to him. He's delighted to see someone respect his dreams and aspirations, hobbies, opinions, attitude toward life -- this is all very much in contrast to his wife, who doesn't get him at all. It doesn't seem like it's sexual -- his wife is smoking hot, while Juno is all swollen up and pregnant and shit. |
Edited by - MisterBadIdea on 02/10/2008 20:59:56 |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 09:47:35
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
Yeah, but in the real world, only the religious go so far as to protest abortion clinics.
Sure, that's the typical world, but it's not beyond the realms of realism for a non-religious person to protest, especially an individual teenager (i.e. teenagers are more likely to take it upon themselves to stage ad-hoc protests).
You're of course right that the film is avoiding a pro-life/pro-choice stance, but isn't that the right thing to do artistically? Su-Chin may be shown as a bit foolish (although I don't agree that she's really a racial stereotype - a stereotypical Chinese girl would not be staging a solo protest about anything), but Juno is not unkind towards or dismissive of her. |
|
|
|
RockGolf
"1500+ reviews. 1 joke."
|
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 14:26:30
|
| I will not be surprised when Juno takes the Best Picture Oscar. There'll be a 3-way "quality film" split between Atonement, No Country, and There Will Be Blood. Claytonwas always out of the running. |
|
|
|
MM0rkeleb 
"Better than HBO."
|
Posted - 02/11/2008 : 16:50:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Juno
The most annoying thing of the whole film was Su-Chin saying "borned". I think this was to mark her as no match for (and thus no influence on) Juno rather than casual racism, but it would have been better without it.
Having a fiance who is Chinese-born and has been in the west for about 7 years, this didn't faze me. Just the other day, she said 'don't' instead of 'not,' while pronouncing 'fingernail' is no problem. That's English grammar for you.
quote:
However, I found bizarre Joe's comment that it was strange that the protest didn't have a fundamentalist religious aspect to it (unless he means that there would be this element outside every abortion clinic in America) - people can quite easily be opposed to abortion without being religious.
Or, you know, people could be religious and opposed to abortion to the point of protesting without being fundamentalist 'crazies.' I do find it suspect, however, that Su-Chin was alone. Protesting Christians do usually travel in groups.
|
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 09:00:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by MM0rkeleb
I do find it suspect, however, that Su-Chin was alone. Protesting Christians do usually travel in groups.
Yeah, but if she's not a Christian (as we should assume she's not or she would have mentioned God in her argument), then that fits.  |
|
|
|
Demisemicenturian
"Four ever European"
|
Posted - 02/12/2008 : 09:07:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I also had to cringe a little during the scene with the ultrasound technician. It took me a few seconds to realize that we're supposed to be CHEERING for Juno's stepmom here. "How dare that naughty ultrasound lady imply that an unwed teenage mother isn't the ideal person to raise a child? Boo! Give her hell, Juno's stepmom!" Isn't it possible -- just POSSIBLE, mind you -- that this woman who comes into contact with pregnant women all the time (including pregnant teenage girls like Juno) might have something worthwhile to say about this subject? Isn't it possible she might have some unique insight into the topic? Apparently not, the movie says.
The film is quite right on that point. The ultrasound technician is not a counsellor and does not even see the mothers with their babies. It is completely unprofessional and inappropriate of her to comment on anyone's maternal suitability. Furthermore, even if it were suitable for her to make such comments, she ought to be saying "Wow, you are much more together than most pregnant teenagers that I see." |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Juno
