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.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?
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?
1 comment:
John,
Two wonderful, opinionated responses with great perspective. I enjoyed the depth of your thoughts as well as your supporting evidence. However, as a fellow colleague, I offer some constructive criticism that may help further your writing in the future. First, I felt throughout your posts that your wording took away from your message. I hesitate critiquing an author’s style because it is very individualistic and creates distinction amongst other blogs in the field they write in, yet, in a few sentences, you veer from your academic writing by misusing some words. For instance you wrote, “But a flaw that I have with the film…” You can’t have a flaw with the film, the film entails the flaw. Also, further down, you address the professor, “As a film professor (much more learned than I)…” A more appropriate way to acknowledge a professor’s establishment may sound more like. “As a well-established film professor with outstanding credibility…” Making a little bit of sense thus far? Secondly, you may want to check back at diversifying some sentence structure. I say this very softly, as once you modify your wording, the sentence structure should follow suit. On a more positive note, I feel as if you brought up some very strong arguments. What a great, witty comment when you said, “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?” I feel as if comments like this create a great amount of credibility in your counter argument because you use their argument and address a legitimate concern. Finally, I was specifically entertained by your last comment, “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?” You not only extended your argument regarding Juno, but you analyzed how an author’s viewpoint may be tainted. This to me shows that your comments are well thought out and incredibly insightful which is one of your greater strengths as a writer. Overall, like I said earlier, I hesitate to criticize style and word choice, but I feel that it could be one of the easiest modifications your could make to your writing that will yield the most prosperous results. I am very excited to read your future posts. Well done.
MWB
Post a Comment