kenoki wrote:had to consciously ignore what the screenwriter was all about to admit liking it though. diablo cody, you are crap, but maybe i think this because you are indie poseur who made it and i am a little envious. maybe.

I maintain that it's because Diablo Cody is an indie poser who thinks stripping is shocking that Juno is totally believable as a little 16-year-old indie poser. It's probably easier to write in poser douchebag voice when you are one.

DrAwkward wrote:Oh, and to echo LVP--that Guardian article is ridiculous and flat-out inaccurate.

How? Aside from the article's exaggeration about Knocked Up in the second paragraph, can we not agree that Waitress, Knocked Up, and Juno have their female characters with unplanned pregnancies implicitly or explicitly reject abortion, in the same manner that the bank gets robbed in Ocean's 11 and Ferris Bueller skips school for a day?

To be sure, that probably ascribes too much prominence to abortion in the context of Waitress, and maybe even Knocked Up (although the "smishsmorshion" line annoyingly treats the issue as a punch line). Juno, unlike those two films, actually goes to the lengths of having its main character reject an abortion, maybe in part because a pro-lifer points out to her that the fetus has fingernails.

Now, it's highly plausible that a 16-year-old girl could be feeling confused and scared at such a time, and decide to carry her pregnancy to term; I don't know anybody who argues against that. In that sense, Juno really is just a movie about a character who decides to have her child, and all the half-cooked dramedy that ensues.

If this movie had been written by an unabashed pro-lifer who had an agenda to sell along with that story, it would actually be a little easier to stomach. Hell, if it'd even been written by somebody with an ambiguous stance on the matter, it would still be preferable; childbirth is something that's been around for as long as the human race, and Juno isn't the first story about that experience by any stretch.

As things go, the screenwriter is a vapid, condescending hipster who also happens to describe herself as pro-choice in interviews. If Diablo Cody just wanted to tell a story about a pregnant teenager, why include the "fingernails" scene at all? If it was necessary as a writer to shock the character out of an abortion and into giving birth, why stoop to using a scenario right out of the Focus on the Family playbook, and then spend the rest of the story celebrating it? Everybody from both sides of the debate knows that Roe v. Wade is under heavy fire at best, and teetering on the brink at worst; why write a screenplay for a high profile film that's going to further galvanize the side you claim to oppose? This leads me to believe that Cody either a) isn't really for reproductive rights at all, but has an image to maintain and describes herself as such in interviews, b) maybe IS for reproductive rights, but saw a chance to appease the anti-abortionists and ensure a greater chance of commercial success for the film, or c) is kind of an idiot who just didn't think things through very well.

Sorry for the lengthy tirade. After this thread, I'm going back to lurking in the tech forums and making innocuous posts in C/NC for a while.

edit: Re-reading the thread from the beginning, which I hadn't done in a couple of weeks, I can see now Dr. Awkward that you see the movie as already "pro-choice" because Juno spends the whole movie making choices. Fair enough, but I still see more pro-life editorialists and sympathizers claiming ownership to this movie than "pro-choice". Surely not a coincidence there.

No story, no characters, no conflict, no themes.
Good actors with nothing to do= Juno.

Mandroid2.0 wrote:I haven't seen this movie, but from what I've gleaned from friends, Juno is pretty much a feel-good, everyone finds themselves and their place in the world through a birth of a new life WEEEEE! It's a baby-type movie. Is my impression wrong?

Yes. I agree with DrAwkward, you don't need to see the movie. But I don't think that's a fair description of it.

richterbjack wrote:How? Aside from the article's exaggeration about Knocked Up in the second paragraph, can we not agree that Waitress, Knocked Up, and Juno have their female characters with unplanned pregnancies implicitly or explicitly reject abortion, in the same manner that the bank gets robbed in Ocean's 11 and Ferris Bueller skips school for a day?

Right, and that's kind of the opposite of what that Guardian article was saying - the article said that those three movies (and again, I'll disclaim any knowledge of Waitress) do not present situations in which the pregnant characters consider abortion as a viable alternative. I wasn't taking notes during Knocked Up, but my recollection is that she did consider abortion, and I know Juno did. So that's why the article was wrong.

If pro-life folks want to be dumb and claim this movie as one of their own (as they did with Knocked Up and as they do with a lot of movies), I don't see why I should allow their opinions to affect mine.

Looking for political themes that aren't there in movies, music, and even sports is something I think should be left to conservative nuts. It feels very Soviet to me, really. To see any character who chooses not to have an abortion as a salvo against Roe v. Wade is just that kind of nuttiness. I'm sure Busey-Hunt* (for all her many faults, I'm sure) is not trying to close down the clinics; she just wanted to tell a story about a pregnant teenager, and didn't want to tell a story about a teenager who got an abortion. If you want a story aout a teenager who got an abortion, I'm sure there are some out there. If there aren't any, or if you don't like them, you're free to write one.

I feel like the suggestion is that Busey-Hunt* had some obligation to tell a story about a teenager who had an abortion, or she loses her pro-choice cred or something. I don't see anything wrong with her telling the story she wanted to tell (which was not a pro-life story); I don't think she owes anyone anything.


* The name "Diablo Cody" annoys me. According to Wikipedia, her real name is "Brook Busey-Hunt." I think that's what I'll use.

I liked it.

It's fantasy. Not supposed to be realistic.

Linus said pretty much everything i would have said far more eloquently, but i just have to respond to one thing:

richterbjack wrote:If this movie had been written by an unabashed pro-lifer who had an agenda to sell along with that story, it would actually be a little easier to stomach. Hell, if it'd even been written by somebody with an ambiguous stance on the matter, it would still be preferable

The implication here, to me, is that if someone is pro-choice, then they are somehow obligated, considering the political climate of the day, to paint abortion in the most positive light possible. Is that what you're trying to say, richter? That somehow, with Roe v. Wade under assault by the right wing, that presenting the choice the character makes to have the baby as the right one for her is somehow irresponsible or deplorable, on the off chance that the right will use this movie as fuel?

If this is, in fact, what you're saying--and that's how i read your post--then i must point out that i find your desire to dictate an artist's sense of "responsibility" awfully nauseating, and borderline "Soviet," as Linus said. (And yes, annoying hipster the screenwriter may be, but that doesn't disqualify her from being allowed to tell the story she wants to tell, regardless of your feelings on how idiots might interpret it.)

DrAwkward wrote:Linus said pretty much everything i would have said far more eloquently, but i just have to respond to one thing:

richterbjack wrote:If this movie had been written by an unabashed pro-lifer who had an agenda to sell along with that story, it would actually be a little easier to stomach. Hell, if it'd even been written by somebody with an ambiguous stance on the matter, it would still be preferable

The implication here, to me, is that if someone is pro-choice, then they are somehow obligated, considering the political climate of the day, to paint abortion in the most positive light possible. Is that what you're trying to say, richter? That somehow, with Roe v. Wade under assault by the right wing, that presenting the choice the character makes to have the baby as the right one for her is somehow irresponsible or deplorable, on the off chance that the right will use this movie as fuel?

If this is, in fact, what you're saying--and that's how i read your post--then i must point out that i find your desire to dictate an artist's sense of "responsibility" awfully nauseating, and borderline "Soviet," as Linus said. (And yes, annoying hipster the screenwriter may be, but that doesn't disqualify her from being allowed to tell the story she wants to tell, regardless of your feelings on how idiots might interpret it.)

First off, I'm annoyed enough by "Diablo Cody" that I'm all for using Busey-Hunt; I got a little too wrapped up in writing my diatribe that I didn't feel like looking up the real name, and stuck to "Cody" out of convenience.

You know, I thought about my post some more earlier tonight, and expected a response along these lines. I wrestled with thoughts which are pretty much exactly like what you've suggested, namely that my comments and feelings are "Soviet", or go too deeply into the uncomfortable realm of dictating whether or not an artist is somehow "obliged" to stick to ideologically safe territory when dealing with something as potentially controversial as abortion.

To use another example from here, I came across the King Kong C/NC a few weeks ago, where you and some other guys here got into a pretty lengthy discussion on the racism, perceived or otherwise, of King Kong, and among the finer points was whether or not Peter Jackson was fucked up to retain the racist imagery in his remake, as well as the Lord of the Rings series. I thought, "Am I basically saying something along the same lines as, 'Peter Jackson has played right into the neocon's hands by making the bad guys fighting our lily white heroes look suggestively Middle Eastern/Asian, at the same time that we're fighting a war against these very people?'" I don't have the answer to that, but I do know that I'm into those films so much that it's frankly kind of embarrassing, and it's an argument that's already taken place in said thread. Either way, I think I would've found somebody who made that suggestion to be kind of a hard-on.

Regardless, I'm not demanding by any means that the only allowable kind of movie featuring abortion is one where it's portrayed in the "most positive light possible". Fast Times at Ridgemont High and the episode of Six Feet Under in which Claire has an abortion were far from a "positive light", but they were also unflinchingly honest and didn't insult the characters or audience by implying that these women were going to be traumatized by their decision for the rest of their lives. Even Dirty Dancing, hunk of burnt cheese that it is, is a fascinating example of a film where the writer-producer had to fight remarkably hard to convince the studio to retain the abortion subplot of the film, though it was ultimately watered down a bit in view of commercial expectations.

Now I know that the protester and fingernails scene has been defended as "satirical", but the truth is that the scene ultimately figures into Juno's decision to have the child. Were Busey-Hunt a more skillful satirist and artist, or more in tune with the beliefs she claims to espouse, she as a writer would be able to get Juno out of that clinic, baby intact, without validating the beliefs of the many anti-abortionists who have seen/will see the film and happen to think that it's laudable to stand around outside of clinics harassing people who are making a deeply personal, private decision in their lives.

King Kong, LOTR, Knocked Up, and Juno all have something in common: above all else, they're storytelling, entertainment. The former two feature a 25 foot gorilla and hordes of nasty monsters; the latter two are set in present day America, with one of the most universal human stories of all, pregnancy, as a premise. Being two of the more successful movies of the past 12 months (knocking on the door of $300 million), I think it's safe enough to view them as a barometer of the times, margin of error be damned. With support for abortion falling, and two films which skirt around or reject abortion raking in boatloads of cash for the major studios that released them, is it somehow wrong or crazy to do the math and see that this looks to be the path that major studios and the entertainment industry are set to follow?

Busey-Hunt is free to tell whatever story she wants; you're certainly free to enjoy it. As she's being remunerated handsomely for it, and has chosen to publicly proclaim herself "pro-choice", I also feel free to stand by my assertion that her film isn't doing any disfavors to the members of the "pro-life" movement that are rallying around it.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:If you want a story aout a teenager who got an abortion, I'm sure there are some out there. If there aren't any, or if you don't like them, you're free to write one.

I think I demonstrated examples, but I'll tell you what: I'll write a screenplay filled with embarrassing slang and hilarious hamburger phones, where an abortion turns a teenager's life around. $200,000 for crew, actors, editing, etc., and $1,000,000 for the rights to put "Walking on Sunshine" in the preview. I smell a hit.

*Edited a little*

Linus Van Pelt wrote:Right, and that's kind of the opposite of what that Guardian article was saying - the article said that those three movies (and again, I'll disclaim any knowledge of Waitress) do not present situations in which the pregnant characters consider abortion as a viable alternative. I wasn't taking notes during Knocked Up, but my recollection is that she did consider abortion, and I know Juno did. So that's why the article was wrong.

Aside from the guy's friend suggesting abortion in a roundabout way, I don't think the female character ever actually considered it herself on camera, which I found okay; women choose to have unplanned children all the time, I don't think the character needed to explain her decision. In that sense, the inclusion of Knocked Up is a little unfair, but I think the writer was making a somewhat valid point.

DrAwkward wrote:Oh, and to echo LVP--that Guardian article is ridiculous and flat-out inaccurate.

It was an opinion piece by a journalist... therefore inaccuracy isn't really the issue.

Abortion is an American issue, it's not on the political agenda in many Euro/Western countries anymore. An ex-partner of mine aborted a fetus with my support. I have not the slightest regret and no guilt what-so-ever and never will.

Having said that, I will see this film and it looks good. But I'm sure I'll have a "Knocked Up" cringe moment when abortion is dismissed as unthinkable.

Abortion is always ok, and never unthinkable.

Gramsci wrote:

DrAwkward wrote:Oh, and to echo LVP--that Guardian article is ridiculous and flat-out inaccurate.

It was an opinion piece by a journalist... therefore inaccuracy isn't really the issue.

Except for the part where the opinion piece states a fact that happens to be untrue.

Having said that, I will see this film and it looks good. But I'm sure I'll have a "Knocked Up" cringe moment when abortion is dismissed as unthinkable.

If they include that scene in the European release, let me know; American audiences didn't get to see it.