Oscar Miscarriage: Juno's Presence in the Awards Race

As the Academy Awards are only a few days away, I recently scoured the blogosphere for different opinions and predictions as to who will be taking home a little, golden man (seen at the left). What I came across was surprising, as one of the top awards analysts in Hollywood, Scott Feinberg, was picking the less favored Juno (seen on the right) to win the top prize of Best Picture. In his post, "A Pregnant Teen Can Stop What's Coming... Friend-O!" he gives a breakdown of his predictions along with a projected order of vote-getters in every category of nominees. As I was amazed at this ambitious claim, I went on to further search for what others thought about Juno. I quickly came across a number of articles discussing the controversial issue of abortion in the film. Many pro-choice individuals found the film to be heavily pro-life grounded. Jill Stanek, well-respected pro-life advocator and columnist for WorldNetDaily, posted her opinion on this dilemma in her own blog and defended her personal beliefs, yet refuted the claim that Juno stood on these same principles. I decided to comment on each person's post and have provided these comments below as well as on their individual sites.

Comment:

Your investigative breakdown to your predictions for this year's Academy Awards was impressive and to be admired. However, I must disagree with your choice for Best Picture, not because I favor another film more, but rather because Juno should not be nominated for Best Picture in the first place. It is easy to say that Juno fills the Little Miss Sunshine comedic role in this year's list of nominees, but Sunshine consisted of a much more engaging story with characters that I actually cared about, and as a result, enjoyed watching on the screen. I am not going to rag on Ellen Page, because she did a fantastic job portraying the snappy teen. But a flaw that I have with the film is that amidst all of the sarcasm and witty dialogue that come out of her mouth, portraying her as a smart teen ahead of her time, she is not smart enough to have protected sex during her first time (Michael Cera just looks like a kid who is bound to suffer from premature ejaculation during his first time). Also, why do the parents not seem at all upset when hearing the news of her pregnancy? I anticipated the interaction between Juno and her parents because I wanted to see a realistic, enraged response from the parents, especially the father. Instead, he puts his hand over his face and makes a joke about her first time being with the scrawny Michael Cera character. The film must be so post-modern that it makes light of teenage pregnancy like it is not a big deal. Ultimately, it deals with the birth or death of a new human being, depending on the decision of the mother, and that is no laughing matter at all. As for the other films that have been nominated for Best Picture, I admit that I have yet to see Atonement or Michael Clayton, both of which I have heard mixed reviews but plan on seeing in the near future. I agree with what you conclude about No Country for Old Men in that it leaves you with too many questions, which I believe restrict it from being considered on the same level as the Coens' previous Fargo. As for There Will Be Blood, the performance by Daniel Day Lewis takes over the screen and distracts the viewer from meager storyline. As a film professor (much more learned than I) expressed to me recently, the performance seems very similiar to that of the Noah Cross character, played by John Huston, in Chinatown. So if Hollywood has seen the performance before, is it really worthy of a win?

Comment:

I thorougly enjoyed reading your opinion on the pro-life/pro-choice issue in Juno, and I believe Brianna put it perfectly in her response to you. Juno was entertaining to say the least, but like many entertaining movies, it was unrealistic. I had a very difficult time watching the half-hearted reaction that the parents gave to Juno when she announced her teenage pregnancy. It is interesting to see pro-choice/feminists trash this film because of its apparent pro-life slant. Technically Juno makes her own personal choice as to whether or not to keep the child. Sure, the inside of the abortion clinic in the film feels depressing, but I do not think it is meant to comment on the issue of abortion itself. It is simply another way for the film to make its audience laugh. If there are jokes embellishing the interaction between Juno and her parents when she first announces her pregnancy, why not fill the waiting room of the adoption clinic with humor as well? The movie is a comedy, and gags are necessary to keep the story rolling. Ellen Page just recently was asked in the Washington Post whether she believed the film to be pro-life. She heartedly responded that it was in no way a pro-life film, as it was the character's choice to keep the baby. What was most unusual about her response was this apology she made: "Like, I'm really sorry to everyone that she doesn't have an abortion, but that's not what the film is about." Why is she apologizing? Must she stay as far away as possible to the pro-life stance as to not be ostracized by the strong pro-choice presence in today's media?

The Comfort Zone: Numbing the American Moviegoer

The Warner Bros. romantic comedy, Fool's Gold, and the Miramax male melodrama, There Will Be Blood, both brought in over $20 million. The difference is, Fool's Gold did it in one weekend and Blood did it in seven. Even though There Will Be Blood (seen on the left) has not been distributed to as many theaters as a typical blockbuster, the film should be attracting a greater audience, with so many accolades and so much recognition. The film review website, Rotten Tomatoes, gave Fool's Gold a 10% rating. In other words, of the 97 critics that actually saw and reviewed the film, ten thought it worthy of spending the $12 admission into the theater. There Will Be Blood received a 91%. In fact, this year's Oscar nominees for Best Picture of the Year have all received over 80% positive reviews on the website: No Country for Old Men at 94%, Juno at 93%, Michael Clayton at 90%, and Atonement at 82%. With all of these outstanding "grades," most, if not all, will probably not receive a total gross higher than the amount that Fool's Gold will make. The fact is, the current trends in Hollywood can oftentimes predict where the American public will invest their time and money.

There are fewer artists that want to engage the audience through their creative works, with thought-provoking plots and twists, and more businessmen who want to just put an A-list celebrity in a super-hero costume and throw him on the screen with special effects. The super-hero brings in the cash, because it is something that the audience is already familiar with. A film like this, though, lacks depth and fails to elicit the imaginative mind. As box office statistics continue to show most audiences viewing less-acclaimed films, Hollywood producers continue to spit out similar works with equal, if not lesser, mind stimulation. In the film business, only one thing matters: money. While the exceptional films in theaters are not being seen, the American audience continues to invest their money in the movies they know and have seen before, and thus feel most comfortable with.

With less than two weeks until the 80th Annual Academy Awards, in attempt to make the televised-event more interesting, it would make sense for intending viewers to go out and see at least a couple of the films nominated for awards, most specifically, the Best Picture of the Year award. The box office reports from the previous weekend, however, show that people are more interested in seeing Matthew McConaughey without a shirt on in Fool's Gold. Only two of the nominated films are in the top ten in the box office, with Juno at number five, and There Will Be Blood at number ten. Along with multiple critics, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has also acknowledged the merit of these films. The five films are nominated because they do not follow the popular trend in today's film business. They contain original ideas with compelling storylines and characters, and each film is unique and has thus been honorably recognized. The films may be outside the comfort zone for most of the American audience, but more people need to develop a sophisticated palette when it comes to choices in cinema.

Fool's Gold is the second film in which Matthew McConaughey and Kate Hudson star side-by-side (seen on the right). The previous was the 2003 hit, How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days; that one brought in $23.8 million in its opening weekend, similar to Fool's Gold. With the film's total gross revenue ending up at $105.7 million, it is no wonder the celebrity duo was brought back together on the screen. The 2008 film is about a divorced couple that finds themselves reunited during a quest for deep sea treasure (I wonder if the couple get back together in the end?). Hollywood continues to release films with regurgetated storylines from previous successful movies. By minimizing films' risks and sacrficing artistic integrity, studios create a successful product, but nothing close to a thematic masterpiece. If it brought in millions before, why not stick to it? 2007 included a summer full of sequels; to name a few: Spider-Man 3, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, Shrek 3, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, Ocean's 13, Live Free or Die Hard, The Bourne Ultimatum. As for remakes, 3:10 to Yuma, Halloween, The Hitcher, and Hairspray all returned to the big screen with a rejuvenated look.

It seems as if Hollywood is running out of original ideas to develop into major motion pictures, but apparently, not many people are fazed by it. Pirates of the Caribbean dominated the summer and made a total of $336.5 million, even though the critics bashed it (it received a 45% on Rotten Tomatoes). The other blockbuster of the summer, Spider-Man 3, made a total of $309.4 million and also was not well-received by the critics (62% on Rotten Tomatoes). Hollywood has the American audience exactly where it wants it: too numb to know what is going on but with pockets full of cash to contribute. These films are undoubtedly superficially pleasing, yet lack substance. They are old films with new titles. But as long as Americans continue to give their money to these insubstantial pieces of work, more of the same will be released.

The main purpose of a film is to entertain. Whether the entertainment value is derived from unmatchable artistic quality or silly sketch comedy by beautiful actors, people buy movie tickets for the enjoyment of the experience. I am all for going to the cinema with the intention of being entertained, whether a film has been hailed or criticized, and I occasionally am in the mood to see a less engaging or a proclaimed bad movie (this summer I enjoyed watching Evan Almighty). I will even spend two hours watching another comic book film (I cannot wait to see Iron Man). Films like Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean do not need critics to get people in the theaters; they will bring in money no matter what. Alongside the petty films designed to generate a quick buck, there needs to exist the same desire to see films that will be hailed as instant classics because of the depth and breath of their content. Cinematography, lighting, set design, audio mixing, acting - these are all things that are routinely sacrificed by producers looking for a quick money maker. We should not forget about the films that cherish every detailed aspect that goes into its creation.