Diablo Cody rants off on her haters.

[Watashi]

I may have won 19 awards that you don’t feel I earned, but it’s neither original nor relevant to slag on Juno. Really. And you’re not some bold, singular voice of dissent, You are exactly like everyone else in your zeitgeisty-demo-lifestyle pod. You are even like me. (I, too, loved Arrested Development! Aren’t we a pretty pair of cultural mavericks? Hey, let’s go bitch about how Black Kids are overrated!)

I’m sorry that while you were shooting your failed opus at Tisch, I was jamming toxic silicon toys up my ass for money. I get why you’re bitter. I took exactly one film class in college and– with the curious exception of the Douglas Sirk unit—it bored the shit out of me.

I’m sorry to all those violent, semi-literate fanboys who hate me for befriending their heroes. I can’t help it if your favorite writer, actor, director, or talk show host likes me. Maybe you would too, if we actually met.

I know my name is fake and that it annoys you. What, do you hate Queen Latifah and Rip Torn, too? Writers and entertainers have been using pseudonyms for years. Chances are, you’re spewing bile under an assumed screen name yourself. I’m sorry if you think I’m like some inked-up quasi-Suicide Girl derby cunt from 2002, but I like my fake name. It’s engraved on an Oscar. Yours isn’t.

Hilarious. Her rants are worse than her writing.

The entire rant is here (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=301249153&blogid=433864247&page=1).

[Watashi]

"Since I last blogged at you".

Oh my.

[EyesWideOpen]

As a fan of Diablo Cody, i gotta say this line was pretty awesome.

"I’m sorry if you think I’m like some inked-up quasi-Suicide Girl derby cunt from 2002, but I like my fake name. It’s engraved on an Oscar. Yours isn’t. "

[NickGlass]

That's piercing.

[Spinal]

Jesus, it's like Kevin Smith with mainstream validation. Something must be done to stop it.

[Ezee E]

She made a shout-out to Bela Tarr.

[Winston*]

I think celebrities should never address their internet detractors because then the internet detractors go off and detract about it and then the celebrity is trapped and then has to address those follow-up detractions and then the internet detractors are forced to detract about the follow-up detraction address and then I punch myself in the face.

[Sycophant]

And just the other day, I was telling myself I was going to try not to be so hard on Diablo Cody.

[D_Davis]

She should release a DVD of her stripping. That would be awesome.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I think some of it's actually quite funny, in a Kevin Smith sort of way:


I've been telling stories my whole life. Even when I was a phone sex operator, I was the Mark Twain of extemporaneous jerk-off fiction. I took every perspiring creep on a fucking journey.

Still, you think that Oscar, pilot, and working for Spielberg would've given her confidence enough to not have to respond to fanboys.

[Ezee E]

I think some of it's actually quite funny, in a Kevin Smith sort of way:



Still, you think that Oscar, pilot, and working for Spielberg would've given her confidence enough to not have to respond to fanboys.
That's where being a woman comes into play.

[Qrazy]

That's where being a woman comes into play.

And having a broomstick up your ass.

[Malickfan]

Dana and I flew up to the T.O.

Since when did Toronto become the T.O.?

[Sycophant]

Dana and I flew up to the T.O.

Since when did Toronto become the T.O.?

Since it was okay to talk like you were in a Diablo Cody movie.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Dana and I flew up to the T.O.

Since when did Toronto become the T.O.?
People in Canada call it T.O. all the time... or worse T-dot *shudder*

[Malickfan]

People in Canada call it T.O. all the time... or worse T-dot *shudder*

Ah, I had no idea.

[eternity]

"Since I last blogged at you".

Oh my.

Who does she think she is, Brendan Frye?

[eternity]

"I am middle-class trash from the Midwest. I'm a competent nonfiction writer, an admittedly green screenwriter, and a product of Hollywood, USA. I am "Diablo Cody" and if you're not a fan, go rent Prospero's Books again and leave me the fuck alone."

Oh come on, that's fucking awesome.

[The Mike]

What if she fought Uwe Boll? There's a PPV there, right?

[baby doll]

People are still talking about her? Isn't Juno, like, so 2007?

[Milky Joe]

I've been telling stories my whole life. Even when I was a phone sex operator, I was the Mark Twain of extemporaneous jerk-off fiction. I took every perspiring creep on a fucking journey.

That made me laugh right out loud. Although I'm not really surprised because I loved Juno.

[transmogrifier]

Juno's a crappy movie, but I like it when celebrities have a personality.

[number8]

Did she just found out now that people on the interwebs don't like her or something? Some blogger!

[Kurosawa Fan]

Diablo Cody is like Zubaz pants. An ugly trend I was wise enough never to participate in, and one I'm trying to forget. I wish she'd help me out with that.

[Duncan]

I think it's a valid argument. She's just doing her thing. What bothers me is that enough mainstream press and Academy voters seem to hold her work in such high esteem. I don't understand that.

[baby doll]

I think it's a valid argument. She's just doing her thing.I've just read the quote above, but her "argument" (my, aren't we being generous) is that it isn't original to criticize her script, and anyone who does must be some bitter failed filmmaker. Personally, I paid my ten dollars hoping to see a funny movie. It wasn't, although the mostly white audience I saw it with found it hilarious that the Asian girl kept saying "All babies want to be bored," and if memory serves, some even applauded when Allison Janney told the fair-skinned ultrasound technician to go back to where she came from.

[Duncan]

I've just read the quote above, but her "argument" (my, aren't we being generous) is that it isn't original to criticize her script, and anyone who does must be some bitter failed filmmaker. Personally, I paid my ten dollars hoping to see a funny movie. It wasn't, although the mostly white audience I saw it with found it hilarious that the Asian girl kept saying "All babies want to be bored," and if memory serves, some even applauded when Allison Janney told the fair-skinned ultrasound technician to go back to where she came from.

Agree that there were some uncomfortable racial politics on display. Definitely worthy of criticism.

However, I do think that people consistently take moronic swipes at Juno. I do think that they use her previous job as a stripper to denigrate her. And I also think that a lot of this stems from a certain jealousy and resentment. No, she didn't deserve all the awards she won. But whose fault is that? It's the people who gave her the awards.

Basically, I see a lot of really juvenile taunts thrown at Juno, and a lot of personal insults thrown at Cody. I don't blame her for being pissed about it.

P.S. Juno wuz teh suxxors

[Sycophant]

I think part of the reason that she gets the stripper thing thrown at her is that it was used to promote both her and the movie. As if we should go see it because it was written by that chick who used to be a stripper. Isn't that colorful?!

[Wryan]

I really liked Juno.

[Duncan]

I think part of the reason that she gets the stripper thing thrown at her is that it was used to promote both her and the movie. As if we should go see it because it was written by that chick who used to be a stripper. Isn't that colorful?! Again though, this seems to be more of a press issue, not something we should hold against her. I mean, I doubt she was against the stripper marketing angle (probably for it) but she hardly has control over what the media runs with. No, I don't think it's proper to go see a movie because it was written by an ex-stripper. I don't think it's right to hold that against her either though.

[Acapelli]

she's the kanye west of indie films

[baby doll]

Agree that there were some uncomfortable racial politics on display. Definitely worthy of criticism.

However, I do think that people consistently take moronic swipes at Juno. I do think that they use her previous job as a stripper to denigrate her. And I also think that a lot of this stems from a certain jealousy and resentment. No, she didn't deserve all the awards she won. But whose fault is that? It's the people who gave her the awards.

Basically, I see a lot of really juvenile taunts thrown at Juno, and a lot of personal insults thrown at Cody. I don't blame her for being pissed about it.

P.S. Juno wuz teh suxxorsOn the subject of her being a stripper, it was played up in the mainstream press so much in order to lend an aura of edginess to a safe, predictable teen comedy.

In regards to the accusations of jealousy, what exactly are they supposed to be jealous of? Her talent as a screenwriter or the fact that she struck it rich and won an Oscar?

Her negative comments about film schools are bizarre. She thinks people who went to film school and didn't strike it rich are jealous of her because she struck it rich and won an Oscar without getting a degree first. If she found the one film history course she took so boring, maybe she's not cut out to work in the film industry.

As far as putting things up her ass, no one held a gun to her head.

P.S., when she says Black Kids are overrated, she's talking about a band, right? She doesn't mean actual black children?

[baby doll]

she's the kanye west of indie filmsExcept Kayne West has talent.

[lemon]

I'd never heard of her before and reading this thread led me to believe she was going to be some very hot (stripper, a la articulate Lindsey Lohan) hipster with a bone to pick. After a Google image search it turns out she is just a hipster with a bone to pick. How disappointing.

[Sycophant]

P.S., when she says Black Kids are overrated, she's talking about a band, right? She doesn't mean actual black children?

Yeah, Black Kids are a band. I'm familiar with the band, but it still gave me pause.

[Grouchy]

Anyway, it's not like she was even a real stripper. She signed on for a year of stripping, probably for research purposes for her blog.

And yeah, for a person who made her name on the internets, she's surprisingly touchy. As she's saying herself, she has an Oscar and works for Spielberg. Why does she feel the need to rant when people complain that she's a lousy writer?

[jamaul]

she's the kanye west of indie films

Except Kanye is talented.

[DavidSeven]

I think it's interesting that people decided to focus their hate on Diablo Cody rather than Jason Reitman (you know, the guy who directed Juno). Most film communities are obsessed with directors, and they're usually the first ones to get all the hate. I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films? No one seems to care about that guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, and he probably had less relevant experience. Is it a gender thing? That she's a blog superstar? The faux hip name? Did she force the media to give her this attention? I mean, what else is it? In terms of paying dues, it seems she worked a lot harder than Reitman ever did.

[Sycophant]

When I've actually ranted about Juno, I've criticized both Cody and Reitman.

But I think a lot of the reaction to Cody really comes from the media attention she was given. She's also very outspoken and a lot of the press leading up to the film revolved around her. And she's assumed a role relative to Juno that Kaufman has to his Jonze and Gondry films.

What the hell. There's probably an element of sexism, too.

[Ivan Drago]

My brain hurts after reading all that.

[number8]

I think it's interesting that people decided to focus their hate on Diablo Cody rather than Jason Reitman (you know, the guy who directed Juno). Most film communities are obsessed with directors, and they're usually the first ones to get all the hate. I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films? No one seems to care about that guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, and he probably had less relevant experience. Is it a gender thing? That she's a blog superstar? The faux hip name? Did she force the media to give her this attention? I mean, what else is it? In terms of paying dues, it seems she worked a lot harder than Reitman ever did.

It's the media darling thing, for sure, but I think there's also the fact that most people's hate (or at least mine) about Juno surrounds the dialogue, which is pretty obvious as to who's supposed to take much of the blame.

[Malickfan]

I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films?

If Bruckheimer is the producer, it's usually multiple screenwriters...due to Jerry always wanting many drafts. Though Bay didn't do Con-Air, I read that the screenwriter walked into Bruckheimer's trailer and handed him the 6th draft saying, "That's it." And Bruckheimer laughed and told him that he'd be doing at least 6 more drafts.

It was the same screenwriter who wrote the animal cracker scene in Armageddon.

[Raiders]

I think it's interesting that people decided to focus their hate on Diablo Cody rather than Jason Reitman (you know, the guy who directed Juno). Most film communities are obsessed with directors, and they're usually the first ones to get all the hate. I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films? No one seems to care about that guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, and he probably had less relevant experience. Is it a gender thing? That she's a blog superstar? The faux hip name? Did she force the media to give her this attention? I mean, what else is it? In terms of paying dues, it seems she worked a lot harder than Reitman ever did.

Most films don't get hated on almost exclusively for their dialogue, which is the case here. I have issues with more than just that, but it is the most obvious (and obnoxious) aspect and I feel safe attributing the majority of it to Cody.

[D_Davis]

I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films?

Awesome J. McKickass

[Malickfan]

Most films don't get hated on almost exclusively for their dialogue, which is the case here. I have issues with more than just that, but it is the most obvious (and obnoxious) aspect and I feel safe attributing the majority of it to Cody.

100% agreed.

[Amnesiac]

I think it's interesting that people decided to focus their hate on Diablo Cody rather than Jason Reitman (you know, the guy who directed Juno). Most film communities are obsessed with directors, and they're usually the first ones to get all the hate. I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films? No one seems to care about that guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, and he probably had less relevant experience. Is it a gender thing? That she's a blog superstar? The faux hip name? Did she force the media to give her this attention? I mean, what else is it? In terms of paying dues, it seems she worked a lot harder than Reitman ever did.

Good point.

As others have already said, it is likely because it seems that the primary criticism lodged at Juno is in regards to the grating and unrealistic dialogue.

Whereas with Bay, I suppose there is a greater assortment of flaws to dig into...and a track history of similarly flawed offerings which might solidify him as a proponent of so-called 'bad popcorn cinema'. With Reitman, he doesn't really have as glaring a track-record. And with the dialogue being the primary and most glaring flaw, we are left to look at the writer ... who conveniently has an edgy name that is easy to remember and a 'controversial' past and disposition to further stigmatize her with.

[Spinal]

I think the acting in Juno is really quite good for the most part. I think it has solid direction as well. It's clearly the writing that is ass ... *spins wheel of retro 80s fortune* .... Rainbow Brite.

[Qrazy]

I think it's interesting that people decided to focus their hate on Diablo Cody rather than Jason Reitman (you know, the guy who directed Juno). Most film communities are obsessed with directors, and they're usually the first ones to get all the hate. I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films? No one seems to care about that guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, and he probably had less relevant experience. Is it a gender thing? That she's a blog superstar? The faux hip name? Did she force the media to give her this attention? I mean, what else is it? In terms of paying dues, it seems she worked a lot harder than Reitman ever did.

I dunno frankly I thought Reitman did a decent job with an irritating semi-passable script.

[number8]

I think the acting in Juno is really quite good for the most part. I think it has solid direction as well.

Yep. I liked the way Reitman dressed up the world, especially with the accessories in the teens' rooms. And I liked everyone's acting except Page.

[Raiders]

I thought Page was excellent in this film. I don't get the hate at all.

[Ivan Drago]

Awesome J. McKickass

Rep times a million.

[Boner M]

She's like a goth-punk fembot created by Michael Ian Black.

[baby doll]

I think it's interesting that people decided to focus their hate on Diablo Cody rather than Jason Reitman (you know, the guy who directed Juno). Most film communities are obsessed with directors, and they're usually the first ones to get all the hate. I mean, do you guys even know who wrote Michael Bay's films? No one seems to care about that guy who wrote Little Miss Sunshine, and he probably had less relevant experience. Is it a gender thing? That she's a blog superstar? The faux hip name? Did she force the media to give her this attention? I mean, what else is it? In terms of paying dues, it seems she worked a lot harder than Reitman ever did.Reitman's direction is so impersonal he makes Michael Bay look like Federico Fellini. That's why people dwell on the writing.

[baby doll]

Yep. I liked the way Reitman dressed up the world, especially with the accessories in the teens' rooms. And I liked everyone's acting except Page.That's more a matter of a setting dressing than direction. But while we're on the subject of accessories, the characters are virtually defined by their association with various consumer products from Sunny D to Sonic Youth to orange Tic Tacs. I doubt the companies paid for these plugs (if any thing, the filmmakers probably had to clear the rights to mention them by name, which no doubt cost a fortune), and it's not even likely that Cody simply wanted Sunny D to send her a crate of free swag. The film is symptomatic of late capitalism where people define themselves by what they buy. An interesting film could be made on this phenomenon, but Juno merely reflects it uncritically.

[Rowland]

I didn't like the direction either. It had a certain Wes Anderson-lite quality that irked me. And fuck that soundtrack. Superbad had the right idea with all those groovy soul and funk tunes.

[number8]

The soundtrack is probably the second worst thing to the dialogue, agreed.

Actually, I wonder if they were Reitman's choice or if they were written into the script by Diablo Cody.

[eternity]

The soundtrack is probably the second worst thing to the dialogue, agreed.

Actually, I wonder if they were Reitman's choice or if they were written into the script by Diablo Cody.

The soundtrack is about 100x worse than the dialogue is. I'm willing to admit that Juno has one of the most grating soundtracks in a while. Fuck Kimya Dawson. Fuck The Moldy Peaches. Long live Iggy and the Stooges.

[Spinal]

"Oh and you know what? I bought another Sonic Youth album and it sucked... it's just noise."

:rolleyes:

[Fezzik]

Awesome J. McKickass

I LOLed...thanks :D

[D_Davis]

"Oh and you know what? I bought another Sonic Youth album and it sucked... it's just noise."

:rolleyes:

What's this from? Anyone who says this needs to be punched in the throat.

[Winston*]

What's this from? Anyone who says this needs to be punched in the throat.

Pretty sure Maggie Smith's character says it in Gosford Park.

[eternity]

What's this from? Anyone who says this needs to be punched in the throat.
It's from Juno, though there is plenty of context involved. Pretty pivotal scene in the film.

[Philosophe_rouge]

It's from Juno, though there is plenty of context involved. Pretty pivotal scene in the film.
I agree.

[SirNewt]

The soundtrack is about 100x worse than the dialogue is. I'm willing to admit that Juno has one of the most grating soundtracks in a while. Fuck Kimya Dawson. Fuck The Moldy Peaches. Long live Iggy and the Stooges.

You mean bored droning, because it's not hip to care, singing is not an entertaining end in itself?

I don't hate her though. Her film was fine. Though it did have annoying dialogue, "preggers". It would have been entertaining throughout if not for it's constrained viewpoint and unintentional offensiveness. Strange, though, when I dissect it I find that nearly every singular aspect of this film should annoy the shit out of me but I accepted it as a whole somehow. Oh well.

[Malickfan]

Even if Juno had died while giving birth, it still would not have saved the film.

[eternity]

You mean bored droning, because it's not hip to care, singing is not an entertaining end in itself?

I don't hate her though. Her film was fine. Though it did have annoying dialogue, "preggers". It would have been entertaining throughout if not for it's constrained viewpoint and unintentional offensiveness. Strange, though, when I dissect it I find that nearly every singular aspect of this film should annoy the shit out of me but I accepted it as a whole somehow. Oh well.

"Annoying" is a completely subjective adjective, though. Would anyone never say "preggers"?

[Kurosawa Fan]

My wife used to say 'preggers' when she was pregnant, long before Juno was released. I'm not proud of this, I'm just sayin'.

[The Mike]

I've heard preggers a lot too, especially from teens. Drug addict teens, but teens nonetheless.

[Sycophant]

Yeah, people say preggers. People also say home skillet. That doesn't make the forced concentration of this lingo into the film any more bearable.

[eternity]

I've heard preggers a lot too, especially from teens. Drug addict teens, but teens nonetheless.It's mentioned but not dived into, but Juno loves her drugs and alcohol. ;)

[Spinal]

It's from Juno, though there is plenty of context involved. Pretty pivotal scene in the film.

Uh, no. It's just as lame in context.

[D_Davis]

First time I heard "preggers" was in one of the Toxic Avenger movies.

[The Mike]

First time I heard "preggers" was in one of the Toxic Avenger movies.
Wait, now you guys aren't gonna tell me the dialogue in Toxic Avengers movies is unrealistic, are you?

Are you? :frustrated:

[transmogrifier]

I can't believe its September 2008, and people are still talking about Juno. I can't wait for the Little Miss Sunshine thread to spark up again.

[balmakboor]

I really liked Juno.

Me too. But maybe it's because I'm the age of the father and found his character appealing, plus the fact that I could be dealing with his dilemma any day now. If you are closer to the age of the teenage characters, maybe it comes across differently. Although, my older daughter is 16 and she loved it and its portrayal of teens.

[balmakboor]

She does make one point that pretty much trumps all her Internet detractors. She has an Oscar on her mantle while they can only dream about having one.

[Spinal]

She does make one point that pretty much trumps all her Internet detractors. She has an Oscar on her mantle while they can only dream about having one.

I don't know how this changes the fact that she is not a good writer. I'm supposed to change my opinion because she has been awarded an Oscar?

[The Mike]

I don't know how this changes the fact that she is not a good writer. I'm supposed to change my opinion because she has been awarded an Oscar?

I don't think you're supposed to change your opinion, I think you're supposed to realize that your opinion is insignificant.

[Spinal]

I don't think you're supposed to change your opinion, I think you're supposed to realize that your opinion is insignificant.

I thought that was a given.

[Sven]

I don't think you're supposed to change your opinion, I think you're supposed to realize that your opinion is insignificant.

If it were truly insignificant, Cody would not have bothered with a response. An opinion in numbers becomes a movement. Then, on another hand, if negative opinions about her writing are insignificant, her opinion that her Oscar validates her talent is also insignificant. And the wheels on the bus go round and round...

In other words "Why don't you losers go get your own Oscar?" (I'm paraphrasing, here) seems an astronomically weak defense for any quality of writing.

[The Mike]

If it were truly insignificant, Cody would not have bothered with a response. An opinion in numbers becomes a movement. Then, on another hand, if negative opinions about her writing are insignificant, her opinion that her Oscar validates her talent is also insignificant. And the wheels on the bus go round and round...

In other words "Why don't you losers go get your own Oscar?" (I'm paraphrasing, here) seems an astronomically weak defense for any quality of writing.

I agree, I was just trying to think like her.

I took my clothes off, it helped.

[Spinal]

In other words "Why don't you losers go get your own Oscar?" (I'm paraphrasing, here) seems an astronomically weak defense for any quality of writing.

Yeah, Ingmar Bergman. Suck it, you hack.

[balmakboor]

You know those things she writes for EW? I've never been able to make it all the way through one. She really is a terrible writer, at least in that venue. Still, I loved Juno. I wonder though if it wasn't things other than the script that endeared me to it. I've been meaning to watch it a second time, but am almost afraid to now after all the Cody bashing in its aftermath.

[Milky Joe]

I too loved Juno. I loved Ellen Page, I loved Michael Cera, I loved Jason Bateman, I loved JK Simmons, I loved the soundtrack, and I loved (the majority of) the dialogue. Basically I loved the whole thing, and seeing all of this (imo) unjustified hatred towards something that is (to me) so full of this genuine kind of love is just kinda disconcerting and sad, to me.

[The Mike]

I too loved Juno. I loved Ellen Page, I loved Michael Cera, I loved Jason Bateman, I loved JK Simmons, I loved the soundtrack, and I loved (the majority of) the dialogue. Basically I loved the whole thing, and seeing all of this (imo) unjustified hatred towards something that is (to me) so full of this genuine kind of love is just kinda disconcerting and sad, to me.

I might not have the love to that extent (though I'd easily put it in my top 3 of last year), but I agree that it's a movie I wouldn't expect this much venom exhausted on.

There are many, many, many movies that were made in the last year that deserve all this crap before this one does. But, since it won awards, it becomes a target.

[balmakboor]

I don't know how this changes the fact that she is not a good writer. I'm supposed to change my opinion because she has been awarded an Oscar?

Her screenplay is not exactly the great American screenplay, but it isn't bad by any means. There's certainly nothing about it that earns hate. It is quite amiable and well meaning and honest. Some people dislike the slangy way she makes her characters talk. Fair enough, although I didn't mind it. It is funny, well paced and structured, and gave us several memorable characters.

She hit a home run with her first screenplay and I was suggesting that a big portion of the backlash is due to plain and simple jealousy. (I don't include you in this sweeping generalization Spinal.) She has an Oscar and, damn it, they don't. They then take hold of the script's flaws, blow them all out of proportion, and make the ridiculous claim that it is a terrible screenplay and that she is a terrible screenwriter. The same kind of backlash has been leveled at Callie Khouri's first and better screenplay for Thelma & Louise which was also a home run.

So, I guess my real point is I don't understand the hate that her Juno script gets. Dislike I can deal with, but it just seems to me a million miles away from hate-worthy.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Not sure if this has been addressed, because I'm trying like hell to ignore her and her "writing", but it seems to me that much of the Juno backlash was taking place long before she had an Oscar, so I don't really see how that's relevant.

[balmakboor]

Not sure if this has been addressed, because I'm trying like hell to ignore her and her "writing", but it seems to me that much of the Juno backlash was taking place long before she had an Oscar, so I don't really see how that's relevant.

Her script was considered a home run in every sense other than Oscar (as well as an Oscar frontrunner) even before the film opened. It was some of the loudest Oscar buzz I've heard for a script in a decade or more.

[Derek]

Her script was considered a home run in every sense other than Oscar (as well as an Oscar frontrunner) even before the film opened. It was some of the loudest Oscar buzz I've heard for a script in a decade or more.

I saw the film before it even opened, hated it before it even opened and even though my feelings on the film were cemented even before it opened, I can always be marginalized by being lumped into the faceless group of "backlashers"! Gotta love that about buzz - it has the power to shut up critics by diminishing their perspective by claiming it's simply a response to positive praise...that's probably drummed up by and within Hollywood early on anyway. That's just grand.

[Bosco B Thug]

In context of the blog post, it wasn't as ugly as I imagined it being from the snippet. Phew. It looked ugly for a while.

I think another problem is Cody's script was given lots of kudos for being edgy, and, being a lukewarm supporter of the film, I happen to think it does have an edgy sort of emotional honesty... but the film also ended up being kind of conservative and smackingly wholesome, sometimes to a self-righteous degree. I think this is part of what rubs people the wrong way and makes them understandably vitriolic - the script getting so much attention for being transgressive but ultimately being utterly safe. The hipster-ism laden dialogue just made it all worse.

But of course there are those who the film just annoys the shit out off, again understandably.

[balmakboor]

... but the film also ended up being kind of conservative and smackingly wholesome, sometimes to a self-righteous degree. I think this is part of what rubs people the wrong way and makes them understandably vitriolic...

Yes, I agree with that. The way it brushes aside the very idea of abortion -- much like Knocked Up did -- rubbed me the wrong way. When it comes to unwanted pregnancy movies; 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days was much better. If the Juno script had a flaw for me, it would be that it never grew dark enough. Juno never quite got swallowed by the whale. There was never enough at stake. "Will I keep the baby or give it to this under-written and not terribly interesting young couple?" just doesn't cut it. Juno needed to die in some sense, but it was probably the very light (in both senses of the word) and safe qualities of the script that got it produced in the first place. Sad.

[baby doll]

Yes, I agree with that. The way it brushes aside the very idea of abortion -- much like Knocked Up did -- rubbed me the wrong way. When it comes to unwanted pregnancy movies; 4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days was much better. If the Juno script had a flaw for me, it would be that it never grew dark enough. Juno never quite got swallowed by the whale. There was never enough at stake. "Will I keep the baby or give it to this under-written and not terribly interesting young couple?" just doesn't cut it. Juno needed to die in some sense, but it was probably the very light (in both senses of the word) and safe qualities of the script that got it produced in the first place. Sad.I thought it was incredibly lame how Manohla Dargis and other critics set up 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days as the anti-Juno. It is, clearly, the superior film, but neither film has had have any tangible political impact and the fact that one is more progressive doesn't automatically make it a more interesting film. Furthermore, liberal activist critics always champion the least interesting, least formally inventive and most heavy handed social message pictures (An Inconvenient Truth, any Michael Moore documentary) because those are the ones that reach the widest audience.

[NickGlass]

I thought it was incredibly lame how Manohla Dargis and other critics set up 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days as the anti-Juno. It is, clearly, the superior film, but neither film has had have any tangible political impact and the fact that one is more progressive doesn't automatically make it a more interesting film. Furthermore, liberal activist critics always champion the least interesting, least formally inventive and most heavy handed social message pictures (An Inconvenient Truth, any Michael Moore documentary) because those are the ones that reach the widest audience.

What good is a message if no one hears it?

[balmakboor]

I thought it was incredibly lame how Manohla Dargis and other critics set up 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days as the anti-Juno. It is, clearly, the superior film, but neither film has had have any tangible political impact and the fact that one is more progressive doesn't automatically make it a more interesting film. Furthermore, liberal activist critics always champion the least interesting, least formally inventive and most heavy handed social message pictures (An Inconvenient Truth, any Michael Moore documentary) because those are the ones that reach the widest audience.

I think it is very understandable that critics compared the films Juno and 4 Months. Both center on an unwanted pregnancy. One shows a character choosing abortion while the other pointedly shows a character not choosing abortion. The politics are crystal clear in the former. They are confused in Juno. Juno exercises choice which would tend to make it liberal, but the choice of abortion is portrayed so condescendingly as to make it a joke, not a real option at all. It ultimately becomes a conservative movie because the only good choice is having the baby.

Liberal critics have championed 4 Months and it is very interesting, formally inventive, and matter-of-fact rather than heavy handed. So I don't see where you are coming from with your last comment. I'm also not convinced that neither film has had any tangible political impact. Where's you data?

I do think that both films are interesting. One because it knows what it is about and the other because it can't make up its mind. In that sense, Juno is probably the more interesting reflection of our times. It's the sort of think Robin Wood has described as an incoherant text.

[Duncan]

I thought it was incredibly lame how Manohla Dargis and other critics set up 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days as the anti-Juno. It is, clearly, the superior film, but neither film has had have any tangible political impact and the fact that one is more progressive doesn't automatically make it a more interesting film. Furthermore, liberal activist critics always champion the least interesting, least formally inventive and most heavy handed social message pictures (An Inconvenient Truth, any Michael Moore documentary) because those are the ones that reach the widest audience.

I went back and read Dargis' article. She never mentions Juno. She says 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days deserves to be seen "partly because it offers a welcome alternative to the coy, trivializing attitude toward abortion now in vogue in American fiction films, but largely because it marks the emergence of an important new talent in the Romanian writer and director Cristian Mungiu." This is the only reference to American films of any kind in the review. You might take the time to notice that she considers this only of secondary importance to the recognition of a director who is both formally talented and is intelligent enough not to provide heavy handed messages or stale political allegories, which she goes on to argue extensively and persuasively. I remember you posting something similar in the 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days thread and obviously I didn't get through to you there so I'm not sure why I'm trying again. Anyway, I agree that the film's politics are quite clear. However, I think there have been two distinct, negative tendencies in film criticism since the late 50's onward. The first is the anti-intellectual, American tendency you describe - the passing over of the challenging and favouring of the populist mirrors. The second comes from the leftist intellectual side of things, and that is the favouring of the political over the ethical. It's a very French movement. I think that's what you're doing here. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is a great film for a number of reasons. The first is that it is aesthetically brilliant (re-read that Dargis article for a good argument why). The second is that it manages to convey a clear political message (about totalitarianism, not abortion) without diluting any of the ethical complexities of its characters' choices. It never condescends to either side (with the sole exception of that dinner table scene, which I read somewhere was written by the same guy who wrote The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, a film I did not like), indeed never labels "sides" at all. Its great accomplishment is not in creating some clear political, liberal polemic - it's nothing like a polemic. Rather, it is the display of personal, moral chaos associated with abortion and the humanity it requires to make a choice within that chaos. And it never judges that choice, regardless of what political side it may fall on. Here's the last paragraph form Dargis' review. She expresses similar ideas better than I can.


In interviews, Mr. Mungiu has resisted some of the metaphoric readings of his film (say, as an attack on the Ceausescu regime) and resisted making overt declarations on abortion. I’ve read more than once that the film is not about abortion (or even an abortion) but, rather, totalitarianism, a take that brings to mind Susan Sontag’s observation that “interpretation is the revenge of the intellect upon art.” This isn’t to say that “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days” isn’t also about human will and the struggle for freedom in the face of state oppression, only to suggest that such readings can be limited and limiting. Mr. Mungiu never forgets the palpably real women at the center of his film, and one of its great virtues is that neither do you. Link (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/movies/25mont.html)

[Amnesiac]

It never condescends to either side (with the sole exception of that dinner table scene, which I read somewhere was written by the same guy who wrote The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, a film I did not like), indeed never labels "sides" at all.
Link (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/movies/25mont.html)

It's been a good few months since I've last seen the film. What is it about the dinner table scene that seems to indicate a condescension towards a certain side? Is it because Otilla seems to be vehemently disgusted by what she has been 'forced' to do and wants to eviscerate the entire experience from her memory?

Besides that, I think I get what is being said about the film. That is, that it is reticent to declare a polemic debate and instead chooses to focus on the struggles of two human characters in a difficult situation spawned by chaotic circumstances and government-imposed limitations. So, the idea here is that the film doesn't impose any judgement on the characters or their choices. It doesn't give any indication that a wiser choice would have been to have the baby and not deal with the complexities of illegal abortion. It doesn't exactly say that illegal abortion is the wisest choice either. Instead, it focuses on the notion that - okay, this is the tough reality, and here is how people may scramble to cope with that reality.

I've never considered the film as being that tight-lipped on the abortion question but I can't say it doesn't make sense, now that I think about it. It doesn't exactly advocate abortion, choice, or pro-life sentiments ... it's more a documentation of difficult circumstances having induced difficult choices and the people who are swept up in that chaos and having to make those choices.

[Duncan]

It's been a good few months since I've last seen the film. What is it about the dinner table scene that seems to indicate a condescension towards a certain side? Is it because Otilla seems to be vehemently disgusted by what she has been 'forced' to do and wants to eviscerate the entire experience from her memory? I just remember the conversation being really blatantly Marxist, whereas the rest of the film doesn't stray left or right, just avoids totalitarianism without distinguishing between Communism or Fascism. It's also a satirical scene, whereas the rest of the film is pretty straight faced.

[Amnesiac]

I just remember the conversation being really blatantly Marxist, whereas the rest of the film doesn't stray left or right, just avoids totalitarianism without distinguishing between Communism or Fascism. It's also a satirical scene, whereas the rest of the film is pretty straight faced.

Hm, I don't recall anything particularly Marxist in that last scene but maybe I wasn't considering it with the right ideas in mind. I don't really see satire in it, either.

[Duncan]

Hm, I don't recall anything particularly Marxist in that last scene but maybe I wasn't considering it with the right ideas in mind. I don't really see satire in it, either.

I saw the film about a year ago so I can't really remember specific lines. But I remember the boyfriend's parents being very bourgeois professionals who spoke to Otilla as if they understood her position perfectly and had all the right solutions. The film seemed critical of the assertions. Maybe I'm exaggerating how Marxist it was in my memories of it.

[Amnesiac]

I saw the film about a year ago so I can't really remember specific lines. But I remember the boyfriend's parents being very bourgeois professionals who spoke to Otilla as if they understood her position perfectly and had all the right solutions. The film seemed critical of the assertions. Maybe I'm exaggerating how Marxist it was in my memories of it.

Oh, that scene. I thought you were suggesting the final scene of the film. I should have known better.

I guess I could see where the Marxism lies in that. At the time, I didn't really think much of that scene except for the fact that these bourgeois individuals were completely out-of-touch with the true difficulties of the society they were living in. The scene establishes a gap between Otilla and these bourgeois individuals, solidifying the idea that she had no one of 'reputable character' to go to in this situation ... no one who could possibly sympathize with the nightmare she was dealing with. It cemented the lonely, panicked desperation of her situation.

Plus, there was the torturous irony in the fact Otilla was at a table full of doctors who, in other circumstances, might have been able alleviate her nightmarish situation.

[Pop Trash]

I liked Juno and thought, aside from the rightly criticized 'witty' banter in the first 20 minutes or so, the script was pretty well handled. I liked that no one is really judgemental of the situation at hand and I liked that Cody seems to criticize modern day snide hipsterdom (of which she is also culpable here) in her portrayals of Bateman's character and Juno's changes. There is a clear arc and depth to the characters.

Not to say it doesn't have flaws beyond the first quarter of the film. The scene where her stepmom barks at the nurse who is just doing her job bothered me. Also those continuous pop-culture references even during crazy moments (like saying 'Thundercats are go!' during labor) makes me :rolleyes:

But I do think Juno's critics willfully ignore the things the movie does right.

[Pop Trash]

OK, I just looked at IMDB's quotes page for Juno...and there is quite a bit of cringey dialogue I forgot about. Damn.

[EyesWideOpen]

OK, I just looked at IMDB's quotes page for Juno...and there is quite a bit of cringey dialogue I forgot about. Damn.

reading quotes not in context within the movie is a horrible way to judge dialogue.

[Amnesiac]

But he's seen the movie. I'm sure he could recall the context the quoted dialogue took place within.

Oh, and context or no context, there's just no saving the atrocious "swear to blog?!" line.

[baby doll]

What good is a message if no one hears it?Then you're talking about the audience rather than the film. Furthermore, what good is a message anyway? People are complacent and a film isn't going to bring about the revolution.

[baby doll]

I think it is very understandable that critics compared the films Juno and 4 Months. Both center on an unwanted pregnancy. One shows a character choosing abortion while the other pointedly shows a character not choosing abortion. The politics are crystal clear in the former. They are confused in Juno. Juno exercises choice which would tend to make it liberal, but the choice of abortion is portrayed so condescendingly as to make it a joke, not a real option at all. It ultimately becomes a conservative movie because the only good choice is having the baby.

Liberal critics have championed 4 Months and it is very interesting, formally inventive, and matter-of-fact rather than heavy handed. So I don't see where you are coming from with your last comment. I'm also not convinced that neither film has had any tangible political impact. Where's you data?

I do think that both films are interesting. One because it knows what it is about and the other because it can't make up its mind. In that sense, Juno is probably the more interesting reflection of our times. It's the sort of think Robin Wood has described as an incoherant text.In regards to 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, I didn't find it as interesting or as stylish as everyone else seems to. In fact, in terms of its mise en scène, it struck me as rather anemic with the actors standing or sitting completely still as they deliver their lines. And I did find much of it extremely heavy handed, the most obvious example being the whole dinner table scene to remind us that inequality existed even under the communist regime. So I would hardly say the film represents the vanguard of world cinema.

As far as my data, the whole point is there is no way to measure this sort of thing. Any political impact it would have is intangible and can't be measured. If you really want to affect change, you should have a more concrete plan for bringing it about.

[baby doll]

I went back and read Dargis' article. She never mentions Juno. She says 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days deserves to be seen "partly because it offers a welcome alternative to the coy, trivializing attitude toward abortion now in vogue in American fiction films, but largely because it marks the emergence of an important new talent in the Romanian writer and director Cristian Mungiu." This is the only reference to American films of any kind in the review. You might take the time to notice that she considers this only of secondary importance to the recognition of a director who is both formally talented and is intelligent enough not to provide heavy handed messages or stale political allegories, which she goes on to argue extensively and persuasively. I remember you posting something similar in the 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days thread and obviously I didn't get through to you there so I'm not sure why I'm trying again. Anyway, I agree that the film's politics are quite clear. However, I think there have been two distinct, negative tendencies in film criticism since the late 50's onward. The first is the anti-intellectual, American tendency you describe - the passing over of the challenging and favouring of the populist mirrors. The second comes from the leftist intellectual side of things, and that is the favouring of the political over the ethical. It's a very French movement. I think that's what you're doing here. 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is a great film for a number of reasons. The first is that it is aesthetically brilliant (re-read that Dargis article for a good argument why). The second is that it manages to convey a clear political message (about totalitarianism, not abortion) without diluting any of the ethical complexities of its characters' choices. It never condescends to either side (with the sole exception of that dinner table scene, which I read somewhere was written by the same guy who wrote The Death of Mr. Lazarescu, a film I did not like), indeed never labels "sides" at all. Its great accomplishment is not in creating some clear political, liberal polemic - it's nothing like a polemic. Rather, it is the display of personal, moral chaos associated with abortion and the humanity it requires to make a choice within that chaos. And it never judges that choice, regardless of what political side it may fall on. Here's the last paragraph form Dargis' review. She expresses similar ideas better than I can.

Link (http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/01/25/movies/25mont.html)In regards to Dargis, I was thinking of her year-end piece in which she writes:

"I doubt that most moviegoers would prefer the relentlessly honest “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” which involves a young woman seeking an illegal abortion, over “Juno,” an ingratiating comedy about a teenager who carries her pregnancy to term. But I wish they had the choice. “4 Months” is aesthetically bracing, but “Juno” has easy laughs, dodges abortion quicker than a presidential candidate and provides a supremely artful male fantasy. Like “Knocked Up,” it pivots on a fertile hottie who has sex without protection and, after a little emotional messiness (and no scary diseases), delivers one baby and adopts a second, namely the man-child who (also) misplaced the Trojans. Both comedies superficially recall the male wish-fulfillment fantasies of “Sideways,” but without the lacerating adult self-awareness."

(As I said earlier, I find 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days less than "aesthetically bracing," but next to Juno I can see how it might seem so.)

Also, I don't see why politcs and ethics should be mutually exclusive, even in France. Similarly, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a film about abortion in the context of a totalitarian regime, yet you seem to be arguing that the two are some how seperate and the film isn't really about abortion.

In any event, I didn't find it that complex. The characters choose a dangerous, backalley abortion, and sell their bodies to get it, because they live in a society where one can't be performed legally and safely. It is a polemic.

[Duncan]

In regards to Dargis, I was thinking of her year-end piece in which she writes:

"I doubt that most moviegoers would prefer the relentlessly honest “4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days,” which involves a young woman seeking an illegal abortion, over “Juno,” an ingratiating comedy about a teenager who carries her pregnancy to term. But I wish they had the choice. “4 Months” is aesthetically bracing, but “Juno” has easy laughs, dodges abortion quicker than a presidential candidate and provides a supremely artful male fantasy. Like “Knocked Up,” it pivots on a fertile hottie who has sex without protection and, after a little emotional messiness (and no scary diseases), delivers one baby and adopts a second, namely the man-child who (also) misplaced the Trojans. Both comedies superficially recall the male wish-fulfillment fantasies of “Sideways,” but without the lacerating adult self-awareness."

All she is saying is that she wishes a film like 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days was screened in more theaters. I do too. It's a great film. I applaud her for criticizing those other two films, especially Knocked Up which was an awful, awful film.


(As I said earlier, I find 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days less than "aesthetically bracing," but next to Juno I can see how it might seem so.) She's not saying that next to Juno 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is an aesthetically bracing film. She's saying it's an aesthetically bracing film on its own. By the way, you haven't given any arguments as to why you think it's aesthetically boring.


Also, I don't see why politcs and ethics should be mutually exclusive, even in France. Similarly, 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days is a film about abortion in the context of a totalitarian regime, yet you seem to be arguing that the two are some how seperate and the film isn't really about abortion. I never said they should be mutually exclusive. They naturally inform one another. Totalitarianism and abortion are separate things. That's, like, not up for debate. They're just not the same. Are they related? Sure. However, I'm not at all arguing that the film isn't about abortion. Actually, the whole point of my post was to say that the film is about abortion and the moral complexities associated with it.


In any event, I didn't find it that complex. The characters choose a dangerous, backalley abortion, and sell their bodies to get it, because they live in a society where one can't be performed legally and safely. It is a polemic. I'm banging my head against the desk. This goes back to what I said earlier about you focusing on the political aspects of the film. Of course it's saying totalitarianism is bad. That's not complex. Who would suggest it is? You're treating the film exlusively politically. To repeat, the film is about the impenetrable moral ether surrounding abortion, which it presents honestly and not at all as a polemic would, and refrains from judging its characters actions.

Let me ask you this: what do you believe the purpose of letting the camera linger on the image of an aborted fetus is? How does this in any way further what you are suggesting are the film's polemic intentions?

[Milky Joe]

You guys might find this amusing...

Diablo Cody Doesn't Know If She'll Ever Write Another Highbrow, Artsy Movie Like 'Juno' (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/09/diablo_cody_doesnt_know_if_she .html).

[Amnesiac]

I'd like to hear her definitions of 'high-brow' and 'artsy'.

[Duncan]

You guys might find this amusing...

Diablo Cody Doesn't Know If She'll Ever Write Another Highbrow, Artsy Movie Like 'Juno' (http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/09/diablo_cody_doesnt_know_if_she .html).


About DFW, should I just jump into Infinite Jest or is there a standard place to start? I'm pretty good with the whole tome of eccentricities and obscurities thing.

[balmakboor]

When this thread began, I liked Cody. Give it about two more pages and I'll be wishing she'd never been born.

[baby doll]

All she is saying is that she wishes a film like 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days was screened in more theaters. I do too. It's a great film. I applaud her for criticizing those other two films, especially Knocked Up which was an awful, awful film.Maybe Dargis is the wrong person to pick on, but there does seem to be a misconception on the left that movies with progressive politics are automatically better than conservative ones. Go to ejumpcut.org and have a look through the archives. In article after article, the ruling assumption is that cinema has some kind of mystical social impact that supercedes any consideration of a film as an aesthetic object.


She's not saying that next to Juno 4 Months, 3 Weeks, 2 Days is an aesthetically bracing film. She's saying it's an aesthetically bracing film on its own. By the way, you haven't given any arguments as to why you think it's aesthetically boring.In response to fasozupow's comments earlier, I explained why I found the mise en scène so drab. Simply training a camera on a scene for a really long time without cutting is only an aesthetic provocation in that mainstream Hollywood fare tends toward fast cutting with easy-to-read visual cues. For example, take Juno.


I never said they should be mutually exclusive. They naturally inform one another. Totalitarianism and abortion are separate things. That's, like, not up for debate. They're just not the same. Are they related? Sure. However, I'm not at all arguing that the film isn't about abortion. Actually, the whole point of my post was to say that the film is about abortion and the moral complexities associated with it.

I'm banging my head against the desk. This goes back to what I said earlier about you focusing on the political aspects of the film. Of course it's saying totalitarianism is bad. That's not complex. Who would suggest it is? You're treating the film exlusively politically. To repeat, the film is about the impenetrable moral ether surrounding abortion, which it presents honestly and not at all as a polemic would, and refrains from judging its characters actions.

Let me ask you this: what do you believe the purpose of letting the camera linger on the image of an aborted fetus is? How does this in any way further what you are suggesting are the film's polemic intentions?Let me redirect my argument and say that the film is opportunistically muddled. For liberals, abortion isn't a moral issue, so one shot of an aborted fetus is going to pale in comparison everything preceeding it. It's a bone the film throws to conservatives to say: yeah, we understand where you're coming from.

[Milky Joe]

About DFW, should I just jump into Infinite Jest or is there a standard place to start? I'm pretty good with the whole tome of eccentricities and obscurities thing.

By all means, jump right in. It's his crowning achievement. If you wanted a more accessible route into his digressive, footnote-laden style, you could pick up his non-fiction book A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, which is just a fantastic, hilarious book that you should probably get anyway, but you'll be just fine jumping right in to IJ. It's not even really that difficult of a book (compared to a Pynchon or Barth or whathaveyou). It's just a rather dense one.

[Duncan]

By all means, jump right in. It's his crowning achievement. If you wanted a more accessible route into his digressive, footnote-laden style, you could pick up his non-fiction book A Supposedly Fun Thing I'll Never Do Again, which is just a fantastic, hilarious book that you should probably get anyway, but you'll be just fine jumping right in to IJ. It's not even really that difficult of a book (compared to a Pynchon or Barth or whathaveyou). It's just a rather dense one.

OK, cool. Seems like an interesting guy.

[Duncan]

Maybe Dargis is the wrong person to pick on, but there does seem to be a misconception on the left that movies with progressive politics are automatically better than conservative ones. Go to ejumpcut.org and have a look through the archives. In article after article, the ruling assumption is that cinema has some kind of mystical social impact that supercedes any consideration of a film as an aesthetic object. I agree with this. I think it's a problem that afflicts film more than other artform for some reason.

On the other hand, I think you might be underestimating film as a political force. It's very difficult for one film to have a serious political impact, but if films (and other media) are consistently made with similar ideology then that ideology will almost surely become predominant in a society.


In response to fasozupow's comments earlier, I explained why I found the mise en scène so drab. Simply training a camera on a scene for a really long time without cutting is only an aesthetic provocation in that mainstream Hollywood fare tends toward fast cutting with easy-to-read visual cues. For example, take Juno.Alright, well I guess I just disagree with all of that. I thought the mise-en-scene struck an interesting balance between naturalism and intentionally stylized. Like early on in the dorm there's this shot of Ottila's room that seems like any old cluttered dorm room, but there's also a tremendous balance of blues. The shading is remarkable. The whole film is filled with moments like that in my eyes.


Let me redirect my argument and say that the film is opportunistically muddled. For liberals, abortion isn't a moral issue, so one shot of an aborted fetus is going to pale in comparison everything preceeding it. It's a bone the film throws to conservatives to say: yeah, we understand where you're coming from.
For liberals abortion is most definitely a moral issue. I'm a liberal person and I find it a very troubling moral dilemna. Anyway, the film definitely characterizes the pregnant woman as consistently avoiding the consequences of her actions which makes her come across as naively callous. It emphasizes the casualness with which she decides to have the abortion and her lack of foresight or responsibility. It's quite critical of her throughout the entire film.

[Malickfan]

When this thread began, I liked Cody. Give it about two more pages and I'll be wishing she'd never been born.

Welcome Friend!

[Amnesiac]

Like early on in the dorm there's this shot of Ottila's room that seems like any old cluttered dorm room, but there's also a tremendous balance of blues. The shading is remarkable. The whole film is filled with moments like that in my eyes.

Would a tremendous balance of blues have any real purpose in a film like this, I wonder. What do style choices like that add to a film that is decisively naturalistic, in it's performances and it's aesthetic? I'm not putting you on the spot, either, just wondering out-loud...

I really enjoyed the film and felt it made a decisive choice to cater towards a naturalistic aesthetic for the sake of verisimilitude. There's no histrionics, performance-wise, and there are no showy techniques punctuating the scenes (isn't there only one close-up in the entire film, used with the utmost discretion, during Mr.Bebe's outburst?) This restrained use of technique and a reliance on static medium shots and tranquil tracking shots really heightened the 'reality' of the situation. I don't think stylistic excess really belongs in this film. The static shots and the lack of excessive formal techniques let the turmoil of the characters and their circumstances take center stage and emphasized the hardship of those circumstances as being all the more miserable, trapped even. Sort of like Tsai with What Time Is It There?, actually...

And there's a spontaneity, such as when Otilla is trying to get rid of the aborted fetus, that may be staged (even so, it's effectively staged spontaneity) that also adds to that sense of verisimilitude. Static shots and the ability to observe always seem to add to that sense of realism. I guess because there is no real imposed detail being emphasized by an outside figure and we are left to dictate and observe the phenomenological stimuli within the frame.

[baby doll]

For liberals abortion is most definitely a moral issue. I'm a liberal person and I find it a very troubling moral dilemna. Anyway, the film definitely characterizes the pregnant woman as consistently avoiding the consequences of her actions which makes her come across as naively callous. It emphasizes the casualness with which she decides to have the abortion and her lack of foresight or responsibility. It's quite critical of her throughout the entire film.Well, it wouldn't be much of a movie if she had foresight or responsibility.

[number8]

I swear to god, the day I win an Oscar, the first sentence of my acceptance speech will be "Okay, Diablo Cody, I did it. Juno was still terrible. What now?"

[balmakboor]

I swear to god, the day I win an Oscar, the first sentence of my acceptance speech will be "Okay, Diablo Cody, I did it. Juno was still terrible. What now?"

Cool. Now I have a reason to keep watching.