Juno is a light-hearted romp through the subject of teen pregnancy that is undermined by it’s own self awareness. It is filled with quirky dialog that teenagers weened from the teat of Napoleon Dynamite will endlessly quote. Dialog that will have your grandmother playfully referring to her “vag”. It has a hip, indie soundtrack full of precocious acoustic numbers and poorly strummed chords. It makes appropriate use of “it” awkward guy, Michael Cera, who is great at what he does, but is quickly becoming a one-note actor.
Despite all that, once the movie settled in and stopped trying so hard, I succeeded in choking back the bile and actually began to enjoy it. Plus, I had just been subjected to the Mad Money trailer, and I didn’t want any residual rage to cloud my judgment.
But it isn’t all lactation and mucus plugs. Underneath all the quirkiness lies an insidious subtext. A man honest enough to admit he is not ready for parenthood is a bad person, while a love-starved, baby-crazy mess of a woman will make a great single mother.
By allowing Jason Bateman’s character to bond with Juno, the implication is that he has the emotional maturity of a 16 year old. (Granted, he also seems to develop some sort of romantic feelings towards the pregnant teenager, but that is neither here nor there.) His wife, who will surely smother the poor bastard child to death with love, is seen as the savior, rescuing the infant and providing the requisite happy ending.
The kid probably would have been better off being aborted, but then the film would have ended at the 20 minute mark and been a whole lot less funny.
5 responses so far ↓
1979semifinalist // January 17, 2008 at 5:47 pm |
I liked this review of yours…and I agree with a lot of it, but I just really wouldn’t be me without disagreeing a bit right?
So here it is…while the movie was wrong to slap Bateman’s characters hand without slapping Garner’s, why can’t it be that they BOTH are rewarded for recognizing what they really want in life and not being afraid to leave the comfort of couplehood and suburbia just because it’s scary.
Why is it wrong for Garner’s character to want to be a mother…there’s nothing wrong with that, just like there’s nothing wrong with Bateman’s character not wanting (or not being ready) to be a father.
While I agree that Garner’s character was a bit revered and Bateman’s character was a bit chastised, even the scene in which they were breaking up was not one of pointing fingers, it was very matter of fact. Also pretty unrealistic probably, but if it had been more realisitc it also would have probably been more preachy that he was oh so wrong and bad for leaving her. I think they did a fairly even handed job considering.
And I don’t think Juno was put there as the “love interest” as much as the catalyst for him to realize what he did and didn’t want in life. He wasn’t falling in love with her, he was just falling in love with his youth…or the idea of it, all over again.
ps – you look awesome in red and gold.
thejamminjabber // January 17, 2008 at 8:01 pm |
I think you take my “reviews” a little too seriously, Kelly. I just wouldn’t be me if I didn’t put some ridiculous spin on things.
kfugrip // January 18, 2008 at 9:26 am |
Michael Cera’s one-note is pretty damn funny.
celticrebel // January 23, 2008 at 5:38 pm |
Interesting perspective. A nice break from all the “greatest movie ever” tripe I’ve been reading. Enjoyed the write-up.
thejamminjabber // January 23, 2008 at 5:42 pm |
Thank you, sir. While I can’t cop to being 100% serious about the sexism aspect, the quirkiness in the film did drive me nuts. And now that it’s been nominated for best picture and director? Let the backlash begin!