This from Reverse Shot's Eleven Offenses of 2007:
What, exactly, is Juno about? It’s not about teenage pregnancy—unless that means the subset of pregnant (white) teenage girls whose parents respond to the big news by joking about the potency (or lack thereof) of the father-to-be, or who conveniently give their babies to (rich, white) childless couples. It’s not about abortion, to be sure, despite its “abortion scene”—a parade of stereotypes that hinges on the intervention of a pro-life Asian girl with bad grammar (of course she has bad grammar, silly . . . she’s Asian!). It’s not about motherhood, excepting its contrivance that the arrival of an infant can transform a stiff, cold, deadeningly boring yuppie into a glowing beacon of feminine warmth. And if this movie is supposed to be about love, well, you’d think it would spend more time—or any time, really—developing its ostensible love interest, beyond turning him into a walking visual gag (Track suit. Got it. Yes, I am familiar with The Royal Tenenbaums). No, Juno is really about hype: the packaging of a smug, self-satisfied, faux-edgy, faux-quirky, faux-indie studio film into the cross-over story of the year, complete with its stripper-makes-good, soon-to-be-Oscar-winning screenwriter as star. So what if it makes buckets of money? In ten years, no one will care. You can bet your hamburger phone on it, home skillet. —CW
2 comments:
I don't disagree with any of this. I can't defend the film. But, I enjoyed the damned thing. A lot. If nothing else, it had a heroine, rather than a hero.
I also enjoyed the portrayal of blue collar parents as articulate and level-headed and non-defensive (as compared to, say, Roseanne.) As for the cliche of the Asian girl--yeah, that's an unfortunate lapse. As for the cliche of the white yuppy couple--fuck it, I say go get em. Those damned people pollute the West Hills and Beaverton. The Snow Queen's melting may have been manufactured--but the audience wanted it, and so it fulfilled. And, if there's anything particularly "feminist" about this movie, it's probably the relaxed pace--time to breathe in the lines--which I found soothing.
This was a small comedy. If people get their underwear in a twist because one moment or another seems too much like some other small comedy--and, shit, comedy is all about recycling--I suspect envy of the writer. Nobody seems pissed that Aptow retreads frat boy humor over and over again. No, this movie was not as good as one by Miranda July, but so what?
Anyways. We need more heroines.
I didn't hate Juno, in fact I had a few laughs and few moments of being involved. Overall though I didn't think it was very good, in spite of wanting to like it. I didn't get a babysitter and throw down my twenty bucks and my Saturday night to naysay. Considering the intensity of praise, I think this film is seriously lacking. I think you're missing RS's point that the film is primarily about hype. This is not really a small comedy. Maybe in terms of genre, but it's really a bunch of interconnected skits. And it's definitely not a small comedy in terms of marketing. The studios want you to think this is a 2 million dollar film. They've spent over five mil to make sure you get believe it's a little engine that could. Who knows how much it really cost. If it did cost 2-3 mil, the P&A budget would be 300-500% of its production budget rather than the average 20%. It's another subversion of independent film. Apatow's films are mainstream and make no bones about it. And while his humor might be iterations of frat doggerel, it seems to really come from the characters not out of a cynical writer. When you watch his films you're not thinking about the writer or the writing. It may be base but it's not anywhere near as self-conscious as Cody's. Apatow listens to what his characters say, Cody makes hers talk. I don't think her writing is enviable or Oscar worthy. At this point of my response I'm wondering why I'm even concerning myself with this subject. It might be this: Juno is another example underscoring that I don't want to have much to do with Indie or Hollywood. That saying "we" need a heroine implies a we that I don't want to be a part of. We need a new culture. Films like Made Crooked and Dangerous Writing are truly independent and uncynical. That's the we I want to be a part of.
To conclude my argument with your comments, we might need a heroine, I won't argue against the awful discrimination toward women in Hollywood, but we need one a little more organic and in a better structured story than Juno.
This film is all second act - the first and third acts are awful. And as for your comment about blue collar folks; how much of that is based on your actual interaction with those that rely more on their backs than their wits? Go stroll through Wal_Mart or come hang out with my extended family for awhile and you might change your mind.
Post a Comment