Jumping the snark? I tip my hat, sir.

Geez, what a great, meaty post ... when I read it I can't get around the idea of identity. One of the main tasks of the stage we've come to call adolescence is the forging of identity. The child has no identity of his/her own, being bound up in that of their parents, but as the teen years progress, this separation begins to take place. Thus, Juno's line "I don't really know what kind of girl I am" seems right on the money.

On a slightly different front, I think of the reliability of Juno as a witness to not only what she sees around her but her own psyche. Ask most teenagers why they did something ten minutes ago, and they could no more tell you than fly to the moon. (I'm not sure we get any better at this as adults, just better at concocting rational-sounding explanations.)

And don't you think that this Juno backlash thing looks like the Coen brothers, No-Country backlash? Seems like it's been especially vitriolic. Maybe if a critic doesn't like something that the majority of her colleagues loved, or that has been relentlessly hyped, they feel they have to do an especially vicious hack job.

Finally, I think folks who expect "real" dialog out of a film like this maybe ought to indulge in a different art form. I don't hear a lot of complaints about Aaron Sorkin's witty dialog in "Charlie Wilson's War," I'm pretty certain that U.S. Representatives don't talk like that all the time, just as I'm sure that White House flaks don't talk like Sorkin's did in "The West Wing."

"...or that the only two she would have would be a cheerleader and a guy on the school cross-country team whose members inexplicably don't wear jocks while running."

I hope that double entendre was intentional. Bravo either way.

I love Roger Ebert, really truly I do. He is one of my favorite critics in the world so please don't take this the wrong way but this passage - There's a sort of Mediocrity Enforcement Squad that slaps down anything with the effrontery to be different. [...] In short: Movie characters don't talk like real people. If they did, they'd drive us nuts. - is a load of garbage.

I had a comment discussion with Larry Aydlette on this some time ago and I'll use similar examples. The point, dear Roger, is not that we require movie characters to talk like real people, the point is that they should talk like real characters. When I discussed this with Larry some months ago I used Woody Allen as an example. His characters and many that surround him are pseudo-intellectuals and so speak accordingly. But - BUT - when they are say, a seventeen year old high school actress (Mariel Hemingway Manhattan)or ditzy sister-in-law (Elaine May Small Time Crooks)or a selfish blue collar husband (Danny Aiello Purple Rose of Cairo) then they talk like THEIR CHARACTERS SHOULD. That's what we expect from characters! Not that they talk like us or some hipster's idea of wit, but that they talk like themselves. And I know Roger knows that but sometimes when you like a movie (and I completely understand that defensive feeling) you dig in your heels and defend yourself into an illogical corner.

So to wrap this up, if I'm watching some clever sitcom/movie where everyone employs the same style of erudite wit to the point where even the paperboy seems well-versed in the critical evaluations of Roger Fry and whips out a witticism about post-impressionism, then at that point the sitcom/movie has lost me because the screenwriter doesn't understand that different character speak in different ways.

If I'm watching Annie Hall and Woody's hounded by two Italian New Yorkers while waiting for Annie in front of the theater and they say things like, "He's da guy from TV" and other pointless, unremarkable things, then I think once again, Woody knows what he's doing.

Roger knows what he's doing as well in his response above: He's misdirecting because he doesn't want to concede. It would have been much more pleasing to read him say, "Yes, I know the dialogue is a stretch for most of the characters but I liked it anyway" instead of this stalwort defense of lazy screenwriting.

I don't know, Jim. I wish the film had been a little more smart about the themes you are exploring in it. I really didn't think Cody or Reitman cared too much. They just wanted to sell quips.

About the pre-Toronto moment - that's one of the reasons I could never warm to the film, even before I saw it. The advertising blitz came before Toronto. Every movie I saw at an arthouse starting in August or so played the trailer. It seemed plastic in the preview, and those awful lines repeated ad nauseam killed it for me before I saw it. To me, the film's success seems solely on account of marketing savvy.

Superbad, as you say, was the far better film.

I honestly think a lot of that early hype was from critics looking to embrace a film, to champion this hip film with a great backstory (former stripper turns screenwriter).

I went in to the film wanting to love it. I read CANDY GIRL, thought it was a very entertaining (and creepy) read. I WANTED to love it.

But, I just found it more obnoxious than lovable. The dialogue (especially that whole drugstore scene) was overblown. And many of the references were forced (and wrong, "Thundercats are go"???)

However I did like the scenes with Bateman and Garner. They seemed like they were out of a better film.

It isn't a bad film. But I think a lot of this backlash is just people reacting to the overpraise it initially got.

I don't ever remember this much backlash when Rushmore or Napoleon Dynamite were released. Juno is essentially those films, circa 2007. However it seems to me that Max Fischer is more of an unrealistic portrayal of a teenager (and more of a caricature) than Juno is.

I enjoyed the film for what it was: A feel good movie that didn't rely on the clichés or the conventions of teenage sex comedies.

I agree with you Jim that Superbad was more of a "realistic" portrayal of how teenagers talk (I work with high-school kids, and they always think they are more "pimp" than they really are) but the film also meandered and although the last scene is surprisingly touching, I found myself more moved by Juno's struggle to act older than she is (the scene where she first meets Jennifer Garner and Jason Bateman is a perfect example.)

It's good that this debate is seemingly unending because hopefully it will continue to draw attention to it; keeping the attention off of films like Good Luck Chuck and Mr. Woodcock.

At least we can all agree on that right?

Jim, my man ... why in the world would cross-country runners need jocks?

(sorry if this is the first comment - I don't have time to dissect the rest and write something more exciting :))

Jim, I’ll start off by saying that I agree with Roger Ebert that “Juno” is the best movie of the year (no matter how much “No Country For Old Men” “Eastern Promises” and "Once" are knocking at the door, they’ll stay at #2 #3 and #4). I think Diablo Cody’s script is good, but nothing too special. It’s the movie having the best top to bottom cast in recent memory that makes the movie what it is. If not for Javier Bardem I would say that J.K. Simmons should be a front runner for Best Supporting Actor (he still should be and it’s baffling to me that he hasn’t got nominated for any major awards), Jason Bateman was great, Jennifer Garner was a revelation, and Allison Janney and Michael Cera were just as perfect as they always are.

Of course at the center is Ellen Page’s performance, which I think is better than everyone is saying it is. I think she’s the one that seems to be setting the tone for everyone else, the sitcomy dialog that you despise so much, it’s more like that’s the way that Juno wants to talk and everyone else is trying to be like her (Rainn Wilson’s cameo in particular seemed to be a perfect evocation of the creepy guy at the convenience store that’s trying to be like the high schoolers that come in there). The scene you mention where she tells her parents that she’s pregnant is more like she’s letting her guard down than the movie changing tone to me.

Your comparison to “Superbad” is more spot on than the comparison that everyone else is making to last years uber-overrated “Little Miss Sunshine”. I feel like they’re kind of brother and sister films, Superbad” obviously being told from the male p.o.v. and “Juno” from the female. However, I think that the scene where Bleeker comforts Juno after she’s had the baby is the most perfect (and moving) scene in any film I’ve seen this year. Any words would’ve ruined it and Jason Reitman had the confidence in Ellen Page to be able to convey every emotion to the audience completely wordlessly and as I said, I haven’t seen a better scene this year (it’s the best scene in any movie since Theo and Kee leave the building during the middle of the battle in “Children of Men”). I can’t talk about this movie enough (in fact, I’m going to see it again tomorrow), and I think a lot of the backlash is simply a backlash for the hype and not necessarily for the movie itself. I personally don’t give a shit about hype; I judge the movie by what’s on screen.

Jim, when you talked to your niece about JUNO, did you mention what you disliked about it? Or were you extremely vague and let it drop, which is how I usually handle movie discussion with my family?

"Yeah, I saw CRASH... It's... uh... Oscar nominated... How's little Jake doing?"

Juno gets my "turnaround of the year" award, having similarly wanted to run screaming during its grating opening credits and equally nerve-racking initial exposition ("home skillet" - are you kidding me?). That it grew on me may be the film's own quality picking up or simply my adjusting to its quirkdoms - I'm not sure which, and I'm not sure that I even want to revisit it to find out. But I will say this, not as a naysayers but to offer another perspective: Tarantino's self-conscious dialogue has never bothered me since it all exists within the realm of self-conscious cinema, an innate quality of his films that you either take or leave (either or being for reasons too expansive to get into here). Juno, on the other hand, attempts to pass its quotable one-liners off as the real deal: real people in real life situations reacting realistically, which is far from the truth. Mia Wallace and Vincent Vega aren't people but distilled archetypes and essences exploring the innards of the culture that spawned them. Juno's a cute tyke trying waaaay to hard to seem cool.

I know teenagers that talk kind of like Juno. They are smart, they think they are witty, and they are about as unpopular as Juno is. Conversations with them sound like they have screened every possible comment for every possible situation for 'coolness,' then wrote and rewrote it all night. They are so self conscious that thereis a good chance that they did. Both have maybe 2 friends who barely know each other but see that the kid is really smart with a good heart if they would drop the pop pose. I did find it a little less plausible that her parents would talk the same way, however.

I've written this at a few other places...I think the biggest problem with the film is that Reitman doesn't follow through with the edginess in the script. He goes so far as not playing Juno's favorite music, instead he lingers on these tween songs that are pretty bland.

At times he seems almost at conflict with the character of Juno in the aesthetics of the film.

It's not a wretched movie, it's not a great movie. I don't see where these extremes are coming from - such polarization.

I think Diablo Cody will grow as a screenwriter and the next thing we see of hers will probably be dismissed by all the lovers of "Juno" but will in the end be a better film.

Rob, I also found Juno to be the type of person that thought she was cool but doesn't really know what cool means. That's one of the problems I think the film doesn't deal with very well - it just doesn't fully realize this.

Spoon! That defines my life. Family member or aquaintance: "Oh my god you have to see (insert despised movie here). It's fantastic!"

Me: "Yeah I'll have to check that out. Any more bean dip?"

Phillip,

Exactly. Not wretched, not great. This is the polarized world we live in. I would say it leans toward the entertaining side, though. Subtract the hype and you have a perfectly adequate little movie that falls on its face a few times which is only so apparent because it is so smart at other times. It could have tried less hard and taken less abuse but it also could have been braver and earned its praise. On balance, though, all I found to truly hate was a couple of poorly judged lines. And I don't think it ducked the issues it raised nearly as shamelessly as "Charlie Wilson's War."

I must have missed the backlash. It can't be as strong as the Crash-lash or Babel-gate or I'm sure I would have heard about it.

I was going to say that "Juno" seems too innocuous to generate true contempt like "Crash" did, but on two separate occasions I have read Amy Taubin describe Juno as "loathsome." I don't know what she finds so offensive about it. It has to more than just the grating glibness. Anyone know?

I think Mr. Breckenridge in his letter to Ebert is simply making up a straw-man to attack. Who are these "people" that "expect every film they see to be a flawless reflection of reality." I've never met one. They sound interesting. Where do they hang out?

Jim,

I agree with a lot of the reasons that you liked "Juno". However, I think that some of your qualms about those first 15-20 minutes are off the mark.

First off, why does a cross-country runner need a jock? I know cross country runners at my school do not.

And about you not believing that Juno wouldn't be more popular at school: I hate to be the one to say this but you aren't in high school anymore and no longer fully grasp how its social dynamic work. I, a freshman in college (thus just a few months removed from high school) saw her social standing in the school to be very real; I even thought to myself one of the first times I saw it "hey this girl could be someone in my school". The fact is, people do not tend to be popular based on intelligence or (gasp!) even looks sometimes. I know there were a lot of 'weird' girls that I and other, more popular kids found attractive. This phenomenon is not uncommon at all.

Also, Jim DeRogatis doesn't know good music. Disregard what he says about the soundtrack, which anyone with decent taste in independent/anti-radio music loves.

One thing I regret about the "Juno" debate is that it's somehow turned into a referendum about stylized dialogue in ALL movies. We're not talking about all movies, we're talking about THIS movie specifically. We should be asking, "Does the stylized dialogue work in THIS PARTICULAR movie?" That's a problem I have with certain movie geeks: you want to debate the merits or demerits of one flick, and they drag in dozens of others, clouding the issue and essentially changing the subject. This debate isn't -- or at least shouldn't be -- about the Coen Brothers or about Quentin Tarantino or Kevin Smith or any of them. It's about "Juno." This one particular movie. Specifically. I'm not interested in joining the "Juno" backlash simply because it's trendy to do so. I geniunely had serious complaints and issues with the movie.

(For the record, I really wanted to like "Juno" -- having plunked down ten hard-earned bucks to see it -- but was very disappointed. And the more I thought about the movie, the less satisfied I was with it. It's a movie which, in my opinion, does not hold up to any kind of scrutiny.)

I'm glad you quoted Adam Breckenridge's letter from the Answer Man column because I think it frames the debate in a particularly unfair way and demonstrates how the "Juno" debate has gone astray. Let me answer Adam's two questions:

(1) No movie fan I've ever encountered expects this, Adam. I certainly don't. This smacks of hyperbole.

(2) I don't think these characters are particular intelligent or witty. I found them grating and contrived, and it was a drag to spend time with them. If I encountered someone like Juno in real life (and people just like her might well exist somwhere), I would go out of my way to avoid her.

As for "Juno" itself, I will spare you a full-length rant about the film's many problems. Those interested in that topic should click on my name at the end of this post. That will take you to a thread where I and others debate the film at length. Here's a summary of my complaints:

* My problem with the dialogue isn't that it's unrelastic. It's that it's grating, distracting, and unfunny. I desperately wanted all of the characters to simply shut up.

* Unlike "Knocked Up," which wisely relegated the abortion issue to a few lines of dialogue, "Juno" actually chooses to tackle the abortion issue head-on with an embarrassing sequence that demeans both sides. (Which actually DOES make it "Citizen Ruth 2.")

* The music, apart from one Buddy Holly tune, is saccharine swill and is just one of many ways in which the movie uses its quirky cuteness as a blunt instrument, basically bludgeoning the audience with whimsy.

* Given the decidedly messy subject matter, the screenplay is far too tidy and contrived. Having the story neatly bookended by chairs ("It started with a chair..."), for instance, seemed to be Diablo Cody's twee variation on Forrest Gump's feather.

* I was deeply unsatisfied with the way the characters Mark and Vanessa were handled. Mark was the only character I even sort of sympathized with, and the movie makes him into a quasi-child-molestor. Vanessa, meanwhile, was a terribly irritating character, and she ends up being pratically canonized by movie's end.

And much, much, much more. I felt almost every frame of this film was false. But let's keep it clear: my comments are about "Juno" and "Juno" alone.

Its a good movie, thats it thats all. If the dialogue is too smart for you then you must talk like some sort of buffon. Intelligent ppl have engaging conversations all the time and are full of smart little quips. Just becuase you could never think to say any of the stuff she does doesnt mean its unrealistic, it just means that your likely an idiot,or trying to find a reason to hate it so you dont have to admit its your favorite movie you seen this year.

There's a scene in Juno-- maybe you know the one I'm talking about:

JUNO
No, for real. I think you are the
coolest person I’ve ever met. And
you don’t even have to try.

BLEEKER
I try really hard, actually...

You've probably seen it in the trailer if you haven't seen the movie. It's one of those bits of dialog that catches you off guard-- it's different, and kind of funny, and most likely true. Or is it?

Paulie Bleeker's bedroom is decorated as if he were still ten years old. He sleeps in a race car bed. His mom uses color-safe bleach. He has an obsession with orange tic-tacs. This is a guy who is trying really hard to be cool? What would he be like if he didn't try at all? Like that stupid jock Steve Rendazo? What is Diablo Cody trying to say with this small exchange? Is she saying that it takes Bleeker a lot of effort to remain true to himself? I don't know if I really got that from his character. Is she saying that Juno likes him because he is still a "momma's boy"? I'm not sure I got that from it either. Did she write it because it just sounded good without really thinking about what it would mean for the character? Probably. Why else give such a revealing bit of dialog to a character that is barely explored? If anything I think that particular line of dialog characterizes Juno more than Bleeker (or maybe Diablo Cody more than anybody).

I'm not saying I didn't like the movie, I did-- but with all the praise it's getting I started to look at it more critically from the point of view of a screenwriter. I admire the tone and mood of the film-- and I think that's what a lot of people are responding to. The opening credit sequence does a perfect job of establishing the world of the movie.

I guess I liked the overall feel of the film more than any particular scene or bit of dialog. Still, it's a decent film. And the script is a good read, but probably won't be studied in film school the way Witness is. (I wonder if they still teach Witness in film school?)

Tavis: They still teach Witness in film school (as of last year at least). I had no idea it's such a standard.

I'm a 19 year old college sophomore, which is still not very far removed from my high school years, and it's always been my experience that no characters in teen movies or tv shows really talk like actual teenagers (Buffy or Dawson's Creek as glaring examples). But I did find problems as Jim did with certain dialogue in Juno (the Silencio line most notably), just because of how forced or awkward it is. I think it's problem with Juno is, virtually all of the characters talk in pretty much the same stylized way- from her parents, to the convenience store clerk, to Jason Bateman's character. For something like Buffy where the main characters talk in a highly stylized way, it's fine, because there are at least characters that do talk like normal people. But in a film like Juno, where the characters are supposed to exist in the same universe as our own, without adding any characters that audience members can identify with, at least colloquially, is just a bit jarring.

I believe that you all are missing the point. Paulie and Juno and the rest are, in fact, a helluva lot closer to some teens than you'd think, and I can say this because I am a teenager. I know what the word "procure" means. In fact, I've scored 50 on www.freerice.com, which is apparently not something that happens often, especially not for someone who is 16 (going on seventeen).
I've seen Citizen Kane and love it. I've seen Seven Samurai and love it. I know what the fuck the Thundercats are.

Juno is a kid. Yes, I winced slightly at the "Silencio, old man!" bit, but I think that that was maybe put in there to suggest that Juno is a Harry Potter fan(?), as a few of my friends say it jokingly as a command, and they got it from Harry Potter.It's one of those lines that sucks when you hear it and then kinda bears up and makes sense on closer inspection.

Anyway, to get back to my point: the movie is wonderful. It's wonderful because it has a heart and it's true to itself. Not to all the people bitching about "oh, they don't sound like teens!" Pardon my English, but shut the fuck up. Geez.
You don't know what teens sound like. Teens are just as much a varied group as adults. Some adults can only claim "Playboy" as the pinnacle of intellectual reading in their lives. Some can claim, say, "Paradise Lost". At any rate, it boils down to this:
"Juno doesn't talk like a teen."
What teen?
"I don't know, just a teen..."
Can you prove that there is no teen out there who bears a resemblance to Juno?
"Well, no, but I bet most of them won't."
That's true. Most won't. And that's because they're not Juno. That's like saying, "oh, this quirky kid in school isn't like most teens". Well, duh. That's a given. I think maybe at least four characters remark upon Juno's non-typicalness in the film itself.

I can see a bit of myself in Juno. I'm not like most teens. I grew up in the sixties, metaphorically speaking. My cartoons were Rocky and Bullwinkle and old Hanna-Barbera shit. The movies were black-and-white, and then color. Cary Grant. The Marx Brothers. I didn't understand all of it at the time, of course, but over the years these things shaped the person I am. I read hungrily as a kid: started reading at roughly two years old and haven't stopped since. It began with Green Eggs and Ham; I'm currently going through a Steinbeck phase, and before that it was Dickens, which, may I add, has humor that I laughed out loud at, when barely anyone else bothers to wade through the words.

But this isn't about me. This is about Juno.

Is Juno different than most? Yes. That's the point. If she was a "real teen", there'd be no movie, there'd be no point. But this movie picks up this unusual character and looks at her close-up: we've got enough plain old things in our lives. When we look at things with interest, then it's usually the off-beat, unusual ones we're staring at. This movie is no different.
Juno isn't a movie about ordinary things. It isn't supposed to be, and that's what makes it so goddamn special--but no less realistic.

And finally: don't pick on Juno's friends. Teens today are on the whole a lot more diversified in their friends than you ever were, I must say. There are virtually no cliques in today's high schools. They're breaking down rapidly.

Come to think of it, your idea of teens today was shaped only by other movies, so I don't think you have room to call yourselves experts.

In case you've forgotten, I'm sixteen, I'm not typical, and I loved that movie, and I'll defend pretty much anything about it. I don't have a bias: I walked into the theater with an open mind and walked out smiling.
So I don't have a bias: a bias is something you have blindly. I have an opinion of this movie: It Was Great. And that's because, to my mind, it was.

All right, this post was written in haste and I'm on pain medication, so... it's kind of scattered.

Nimby

When I was 13, I saw "Witness," and I liked it for the "Harrison Ford must protect the kid from the gun-toting corrupt cops and people are getting shot and there's blood!" parts and got bored and stopped paying attention at the "Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis romance" parts.

Then I saw it last night on TCM and was riveted by the forbidden romantic feelings of the Amish woman, Sarah (McGillis) and the subtle pull on her by the magnetic Ford. But I was bored silly by the obligatory "action scenes" with the badguys chasing Ford with guns, etc.

Chemistry and tension between two human beings is far more riveting than a hundred car chases, explosions, shoot-outs, fist-fights, and giant robot battles.

Seeing "There Will Be Blood" last night, I was struck at how compelling the relationship between Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday was. Every time they spoke to one another, I was uncomfortable because Plainview's distaste for the boy is so well-concealed yet so abundantly apparent at the same time. I've read Jim mention that he found the score to be a bit intrusive, but frankly the score reminded me of the shrieking violins and dissonant chords found in Kubrick's "The Shining." I've heard others complain that the music was so ominous that it seemed to be suggesting something evil was about to happen, but that something never did happen.

But something was happening. That sinister score was alerting us to a gradual deterioration of Plainview's sanity as well as his outlook on humanity. "TWBB" is a descent into madness, just as "The Shining" was, only this time the catalyst is not isolation, but association.

Jim,

One minor observation. You say that Juno doesn't face "public shame." While you correctly point out that she is not ridiculed (to her face) at school, recall that she refers to herself as a "cautionary whale," indicating a level of regret, and if nothing else, some self-shame. It's safe to assume that people are mocking her behind her back, and that despite her snappy outlook, she can't help but look at her predicament and wish that she her exercised better judgement.

I agree that it was great watching the film Juno overcome that (somewhat rough on the ears) first act and, much like the character Juno, mature into a much richer form of itself.

To be honest I can't quite keep up with levels of hype and reaction and counter reaction to film these days that would probably boggle the mind of non-cinephiles.

Though when terms like "overrated" start getting thrown around, we've come too far from what made us all movie lovers in the first place. The quality expected, or derived from a movie should never be based upon others' perceptions of that film.

A really fantastic post, Jim about an odd phenomenon that tends to attach itself to at least one movie every year.

I'd like to second an observation that Phillip Kelly made above, because I had a similar reaction to the film when I saw it last week: there's something offputting about a film whose screenplay name-drops bands left and right, but whose soundtrack delivers something else entirely. It just feels incongruous, as if the director and screenwriter disagree strongly about the main character's identity, but not in a productive or compelling way.

But I think part of the problem is that we're never given much insight into Juno's life, her hobbies, her likes and dislikes, outside the main narrative arc. She feels more like an idea with a lot of cool interests attached (anyone who can name drop Dario Argento, Soupy Sales, and the Clash is very cool indeed) rather than a girl we'd believe has picked up those interests. I'd compare her unfavorably to the characters in Igby Goes Down, who also are too witty for their own good and too well-informed for their age: but it seems to stem more naturally from their characters and is portrayed more effectively as a self-conscious attempt to hide their emotional immaturity.

But there's a lot to like about Juno, and I'm glad you came to the defense of J.K. Simmons' character Mac. There's a telling moment near the end of their first meeting with the surrogate parents: after Juno has been really horrible to them (and she has), her father smiles proudly. It's a tiny gesture, but it captures two important things: he has a sense of humor and he's hugely indulgent of his daughter. That moment explained better to me his reaction to her pregnancy than any spoken line of dialogue.

I definitely agree with the criticism of this movie being too clever for its own good. Some of Kevin Smith's work suffers from this same flaw. We don't expect 100% realistic dialogue, but when the lines are so clever as to jar the viewer from their suspension of disbelief, there's a problem.

Wow, so much interesting stuff here, more evidence of just how far out of the loop I've been over the last couple of weeks!

Well, it's no secret how I feel about Juno, so I won't rehash all that. But I did want to mention a terrific article from Craig at a blog entitled The Man from Porlock which sheds a lot of light on one aspect of the movie I found particularly troubling-- that big pile-on during Juno's ultrasound when she, her best friend and her step-mother all give the technician a series of audience-rousing roundhouses for making inquiries, appropriately or not, about Juno's pregnancy. I especially appreciated the comment Jim left at Craig's site in which he mentions the scene in Knocked Up when Seth Rogen takes the doctor out in the hallway, leading us to believe we're going to witness the same kind of dressing-down of yet another insensitive figure of bureaucracy. (Remember Aurora Greenaway shouting down those horrible bitches at the nurse's station in Terms of Endearment? That nagging pain at the back of my skull reminds me that I do.) Yet the blowup in Apatow's movie never happens. It's an excellent comparison of approaches that really sheds light on what I think is wrong with that Juno scene, and with the heart of Juno as well.

Over the past few weeks I heard several people mention variations on the "it's only a movie" theme, but this time wondering out loud how anyone could get their back up over a movie like Juno that is essentially an innocuous sitcom. Well, it's that very James L. Brooks/Neil Simon-ish patness and jocularity that undercuts, for me, what Juno could have been-- a serious comedy a la Knocked Up that has sitcom elements but also well-rounded characters who aren't exclusively joke machines, or who behave in ways that you don't expect them to, or who take a troubled, interesting journey along the way to behaving as you expect them to. It seems that any movie that purports to deal with realistic issues, that wants to be seen as representative of a certain sensibility, however narrow or broadly applied, is open to serious discussion if someone viewing it with equal seriousness, as something potentially beyond a routine piece of hackwork, feels it has fallen short. That's what I appreciate about the discussion here-- there are plenty of observations for me to agree and disagree with, and it's just nice to see that people want to talk about it rather than just dismiss it one way or the other.

Finally, re Brad's point on J.K. Simmons above: One of the most annoying things about Juno for me is the disparity I see between the writing and direction (pandering and inexpressive) and the acting, which I think is generally very good. In particular, I've always liked J.K. Simmons. But I didn't read his reaction in the scene that Brad describes in quite the same way-- it wasn't a proud smile as I saw it. It was an indulgent one, certainly, and he clearly does have a sense of humor (Cody's screenplay makes damn sure we understand that.) But right after the small acknowledgment of that smile, he offers what amounts to an apology for his daughter's tongue, good-naturedly claiming genetics for her lack of self-censorship. He knows she's stepped over the line, even if she doesn't, and that look he gives is one that I'm sure he's perfected over the 16 years of her existence, one that says, basically, "Here we go again."

I feel a lot of people are projecting far too much into this film. For instance, regarding the "wittier-than-thou" dialog, when did Juno's parents ever talk like her in the movie, unless one counts "go fly a kite" among such phrases? For that matter, what of Jim DeRogatis's comment about Loose Lips, which he says "powers a key scene in the movie." From what I remember and can find online, the only thing that song powers is the end credits.

Yes, the convenience store clerk is annoying, and while it's not the best opening note for the movie, it calms down considerably. Many teenagers talk using a set library of phrases either gleaned from pop culture references or just made up. I wasn't as distracted by Juno's and Leah's jargon as others because in a sense it seemed natural for teens to say such things (like "Phuket, Thailand," instead of its close phonetic cousin). What was distracting was the clerk (maybe he picked up this teen-speak by osmosis, but I somehow feel he's just a tad too old for "your eggo is preggo," but again, this is at the very beginning) and the name-dropping Juno does.

However, it never reached the point where I felt the movie suffered. The characters' motivations and emotions seemed perfectly honest and real and that, for me, was what mattered most.

I think what a lot of people miss about Juno is that her schtick is supposed to grate on the adults. Her references are often wrong (It wasn't Morgan Freeman in the bone collector, it was Denzel) but that's all part of her "blogspeak".

I'm reminded of films by John Hughes in the 80s; where teens inhabited their own indecipherable little worlds that protected them while the metamorphosed into adults. Juno makes it clear that she's at least partially faking her life experiences, which is part of the overall persona she inhabits. That's what being a teen is all about.

"You had to be there."

"You weren't born yet." Enough said.

I disagree really with the very premise of this article, and the criticism of "Juno." It is as if suddenly the idea of thoughtful, witty dialogue is now a BAD thing in a movie? If I wanted to watch a movie where people spoke like "real people" I would watch a documentary! I seriously doubt real 18th century Europeans talked like the characters in all the "Sense and Sensibility" clones but critics swooned over every last one of them. Of more immediate interest, do real people talk and act like the characters in most Coen Brothers movies? And finally, as to the political and moral overtones that people want to lay over this movie, I think Juno does what is in the end the right thing most of the time. The movie is partly pro-teenage sex but at the same time shows there are potential consequnces, not the least of which is the dissapointment of your loving parents. And it is "anti-abortion" only if the alternative is "pro-abortion" and not "pro-choice." Juno CHOOSES not to terminate the pregnancy but not to raise a baby, to make this new life available for a mother who otherwise cannot have a child. I fail to see how that choice can be criticised by those who allegedly wear the label "pro-choice."

Um, I think what irked me quite a bit--and even moreso today with the Oscar noms was the piss-poor nearly directionless directed.
What worked in Thank You for Smoking suddenly seemed gimmicky and the librarian cutaway thing at the beginning and the Iggy and the Stooges cutaway in the middle are sorely out of place.
Add on top of that the lack of setting and the claustrophobic setups with every inch of the visible set art directed, and I just felt like I was being handed something that was prepackaged and overly cloy.
How can this movie be one of the best of the year and the Bratz movie be one of the worst when they are essentially the same movie.

"I'm reminded of films by John Hughes in the 80s; where teens inhabited their own indecipherable little worlds that protected them while the metamorphosed into adults."

The dialogue doesn't bother me that much. There's some lines that really grate on me, and some that are really funny. I love how that jock kid sighs when Juno and Michael Cera get together.

But, come on. Juno does not metamorphose into an adult. There are barely any character arcs in this film at all, and none of them belong to the central character. She's the same exact person at the end of the film. There's just no evidence for the empowerment/maturation narrative that people are projecting onto this movie.

The made-up interpretation of Juno that I prefer is that the whole second half of the movie, prior to Juno's delivery, is a daydream she has in the abortion clinic while she fills out her paperwork.

I feel a lot of people are projecting far too much into this film. For instance, regarding the "wittier-than-thou" dialog, when did Juno's parents ever talk like her in the movie, unless one counts "go fly a kite" among such phrases? For that matter, what of Jim DeRogatis's comment about Loose Lips, which he says "powers a key scene in the movie." From what I remember and can find online, the only thing that song powers is the end credits.

My wife and I saw "Juno" with our two daughters, ages 21 and 17. My daughters have each gone back and seen the movie again with friends. We all enjoyed it very much, each in our own way. A 50 year old dad (me) can view it differently than his 50 year old wife (and mom of the daughters), while a more "worldly" 21 year old young woman can view it differently than her 17 year old sister. Our family sees alot of movies. We also tend not to take everything in our lives too seriously. We can crack wise about almost anything. I'd like think my response to a similar situation would have been (or will be) somewhat similar to the parents' in "Juno". I can say that none of the concerns that some have about subject matter, dialog and tone are shared by members of our family. While I keep hearing that the character of Juno talks or behaves in ways that teenagers don't, I actually see great similarity to my daughters and their friends.

My perspective is no better than others, so I am open-minded about others' reactions to the movie. For me, however, just about everything in and about "Juno" rings true. I hope that other fathers will be able to share it with their teenage kids for many years to come.

On the one hand, I agree with all the thematic and logical deficiencies of the movie. It is not deep, not profound, not particularly insightful, not standing up too well for meticulous analyses on a variety of social and gender and philosophical issues.

But sometimes, analyses and philosophy and being right are ... beside the point. Sometimes I would rather immerse in a particular mood and point of view without demanding that they cover all their basis and be unimpeacheably correct. Comedies especially need a larger breathing room in which the audience can put aside analyses and logic and be allowed to be silly and imperfect and sometimes not too thoughtful.

Juno is not a conventional teenage movie, which tends to cut off the adult world and imagine teengers' own universe. Very rarely do we see the lives of children and adults interconnect in movies. In fact it has a lot to do with adults than youths. Paulie, for example, figures very small in the movie. The most successful aspect of Juno is its acknowledgment of the imperfect and flawed world adults live in and the process for teenagers to have the first taste of the disappointing side of being an adult. That's why the second half is far better than the first half.

This makes me rethink the standards of what is a good movie, or a great one, or a one to be liked and loved. Is greatness having the fewest flaws? Does good mean no mistakes? Is the goal to pursue perfection in as many departments as possible? Which is better, a piece that is as fine and flawless as a diamond, or something full of flaws and intimate expressions? I guess it really depends on the individual viewer's own feelings and taste.

I loved this movie. I think people who had a problem with this film are mad because it somehow offends their artistic sensibilities. Having said that, this film made me smile and I can't wait for it to come out on DVD.

In real life, brainy young adults - culturally literate but not yet terribly wise or self-assured - talk a lot more like the characters in Andrew Bujalski's "Funny Ha Ha" and "Mutual Appreciation" (a perfect pair of rentals for Juno fans and foes alike). But unlike Juno, those characters exist in very specific settings, with the imprint of time, place, class, education, and so forth subtly etched in their individual behaviors. They need not rush to keep pace with a sitcom plot, and they speak much like smart people in emotionally sticky situations without the time to come up with witty, flowery retorts.

But "Juno" works on a different level, with each character convincingly talking like the versions of themselves they might quote in their blogs.

Had the film made any pretense of realism, you could call this a flaw, but it seems to me that Reitman made a conscious choice to present Juno's world as a fantasy. Consider the setting - can anyone say where the movie takes place? Some imaginary, nameless North American inland suburb that constantly erupts with day-glo color in every season. And in what period? The pop culture references are current, but in lieu of cell phones, computers, and Facebook profiles, the teens talk on Hamburger phones, hang out at the mall, and maintain the high-school hierarchy more particular to the time of Cody's and Reitman's youth. There isn't a whiff of conflict or intolerance in Juno's idyllic community - if Ellen Page weren't so funny, there wouldn't be a story to speak of. It's an imaginary world so innocuous that it seems plausible, on its own terms, that a teenager could carry a child to term without sacrificing her innocence, and a yuppie marriage could quietly dissolve over the kitchen table with no repercussions. It's no coincidence that the characters occasionally morph into cartoons and burst into obscure Moldy Peaches songs as though everyone knew them.

Is this a criticism? Not at all. I enjoyed Juno, "home skillet" and all, because it knew what kind of movie it was and its form was true to its content. Cody's quip-heavy, bloglike script, like "Pulp Fiction" (which Emerson dismisses all too swiftly here) is not set in the real world, and in this case would only be at home in a film that looks like an Ikea commercial. And unlike, say, "Atonement," one hardly imagines that it was made with nominating committees in mind.

If people were actually amused by the quips then this discussion wouldn't be happening.

I think it comes down to the quality of the writing. Let's face it, Cody is no Allen, Tarantino, or Mamet (three writers with different styles...none of them involving "real world" dialog).

I don't recall a "Glengarry Glen Ross" backlash in which bloggers would scream, "Salesmen don't talk like that!"

The dialog (especially the first 20 mins) just screamed insincere and distracting. And unlike Tarantinos case, I don't think there are going to be many up and coming screenwriters stealing Cody's style...well, let's hope not in any case.

This movie is a big break for her, and I'm sure she has a ton of work headed her way. We'll then see if she is the real deal.

Brian - to the contrary, Cody's style epitomizes the sort of quick, dry comedy of playful innuendo that is hugely popular in homegrown podcasts and the current bumper crop of Sundance-hopeful film students. Catch an episode of Midwest Teen Sex Show to compare. I'd be shocked if the studios weren't trolling the festivals for the next "Juno" as we speak.

But the Woody Allen comparison was fair enough. His most famous comedies featured hyper-literate adults whose sophisticated wordplay danced around, and occasionally uncovered, their more inconvenient emotional truths. Had Allen taken an interest in suburban teenagers (aside from whichever ones he molested), he might have wound up with a film not unlike "Juno." He's made many far worse, anyway.

There are a couple of themes going on in the Juno backlash, but they all come down to bohemian hostility to the picture's strongly conventional, anti-bohemian moral stance.

First, of course, there is plain envy involved. In the Glengarry Glen Ross world of independent film, Reitman and Cody have won the Cadillac in the 2007 sales contest. There are plenty of struggling would be auteurs out there who think they do better work and deserve the fame and fortune more. Thanks to the writers' strike, some have more time than they otherwise would to express their resentment.

Second, the reality is that most of the hopeful artistic proletarians out there never will catch lighting in a bottle. Their worst, 3 o'clock in the sleepless morning fear, is to wind up doing the same kind of commercial hack work as Mark. Juno is profoundly unsympathetic to Mark's refusal to settle for upper middle class parenthood, and hence to them.

Third, underneath the hip wisecracks, this is a profoundly square movie. It presents attitude, irony and snark as insufficient to deal with life's real problems. As things get tougher, Juno gets considerably less glib. Parental love and commitment pull both her and Vanessa through. For those who believe that authentic art must be adversarial and must epater le bourgeois, this stance is insupportable and offensive. That the movie purports to be hip makes its fundamental squareness even more offensive to these critics.

Fourth, part of the movie's squareness is that it exalts maternity. Juno may have the right to choose, but she's aware that the choice isn't trivial. Rightly or wrongly, she recoils from her fellow patients in the clinic waiting room as the kind of people she doesn't want to identify herself with. Like the narrator of an anti-dope commercial, she sees abortion as the choice for losers, and she isn't one. Vanessa turns out not to be the appearance obsessed yuppie control freak she first appears but a woman who is truly good because she genuinely longs for motherhood. Bren, of course, is a she bear when it comes to protecting her young.

Fifth, the other aspect of its squareness is that responsible fatherhood is portrayed as an ideal. Mac is a tower of strength, Paulie a good hearted but unripened boy of whom nothing is demanded, Mark a selfish, immature cad rather than a trapped and thwarted artist. "You're the coolest person I know" is a compliment at 17, but "Aren't you the cool one" is a rebuke at 37.

In sum, Juno MacGuff is a would be bohemian individualist who is the sympathetic heroine of a movie that draws profoundly anti-bohemian, anti-individualistic conclusions. She is indeed the cautionary whale, and the caution goes well beyond the mere need for contraception. No wonder people who deem themselves genuinely cool dislike it so much.

A good a well thought out post.

What bothers me most about the "Juno" back-lash is that it still to me seems grossly uncalled for. I think it is clearly the "best" comedy of the year, with "Superbad" in second place. I still find it surprising that people will start to "hate" a film just because others gave it too much praise. "Juno" came out as a little $2 million comedy in a year of $200 million three-qeuls that all were worse films. I just find it surprising that people want to knock down an under-dog film that managed to become a critical and financial success. I would bet that the many of the people who "hate, hate, hate" Juno would have had entirely different reactions if the film was given moderate reviews and grossed less than $10 million. Its the same pretentious hipsters that bash "Juno" because it was successful that turn other small films into cult classics simply because they want to like something that they think nobody else has heard of. Ironically Juno the character strikes me as the same kind of person who would have liked the movie "Juno" but because its successful she'll pretend she's too cool for it.

re: Jeremy: "Add on top of that the lack of setting and the claustrophobic setups with every inch of the visible set art directed, and I just felt like I was being handed something that was prepackaged and overly cloy."

I don't know where you grew up, but I grew up in a middle class Minnesota suburb like the characters in Juno and that is exactly what people's homes look like. Similarly Vanessa and Mark's place very much does look like the homes of the yuppies in upper middle class suburbs of the same area.

A perfect review, written by moviemartyr.com, displays the exact thoughts in my head:

"That Jason Reitman’s sassy, ludicrous teen-pregnancy sitcom Juno has been heralded for its realistic portrayal of a teen girl’s point of view demonstrates how poorly the demographic has been represented on screen. The titular character, embodied with no surfeit of spunk by young actress Ellen Page, exudes an otherworldly level of self-sufficiency and glib wit. What little “indie” sensibility this film has comes from its usual point of view toward its main character. Taking what should be, by classical Hollywood standards, an underdog, and then launching her into an offensive against any would-be detractors from frame one, the movie is aggressive in its promotion of the outré. What is curious, then, is the way that screenwriter Diablo Cody’s too-hip script surrounds her spunky little heroine with a supporting cast of entirely supportive individuals. No one gives Juno much more than minor trouble for her major digression. Disappointment, at best, manifests itself in-between one-liners. The effect of this virtual love-in is disorienting. There’s little drama present in this inherently dramatic situation. The stench of self-satisfaction, and worse yet sycophancy, begins to hang in the air. At times presenting itself as a chronicle of a young girl’s efforts to search deep within herself, Juno really only wants to congratulate us for being open-minded enough to love it.

The film finds few crowd-pleasing buttons it can resist pressing. Everyone in the unflappable Juno’s path is reduced to the butt of a cheap wisecrack, and little effort is made to explain that she might be wrong in her assessment. She’s shown namechecking “cool” bands and underground movies in an effort to show how edgy and different she is (a tendency that the irritating indie-pop soundtrack is all too happy to mirror). Perhaps most shamelessly of all, Juno finally rejects its too-cool posturing to indulge itself in weepy reconciliations. It preaches empathy, but on its bewildering own terms. In the last scenes of Juno, it doesn’t feel as if a snarky defense mechanism has come crashing down, but rather that one brand of phoniness has been supplanted by another. One can’t rightfully accuse the filmmakers of betraying the cast, but they have swapped condescension toward the characters for condescension toward the audience, which is arguably a more egregious cinematic sin."

PS: I enjoyed the comments by "Jimmy." I suppose I am a "buffon," and that I am either unintelligent or truly hiding my irresistible love for this film.

I have read much (if not all) of the Juno debate, and can I point out the obvious: Juno has a hyper-clever, self-conscious way of expressing herself--complete with hyper-clever sitcom expressions--because that's how she copes with her own confusion and out-of-her-depthness in the real world. Haven't ANY of these people experienced self-defense through verbal gymnastics?

Something that has struck me about the backlash is the smugness of the critics themselves, who pretend to know anything about being a teenage girl.

You don't understand how an intellegent pretty girl can't have more friends? Are you kidding? Look at her. Listen to her. When I was in high school, I was friends with girls like Juno. Exactly like her. Witty, glib, one-liner girls who you have to pull teeth to get a serious response out of. They have friends...but more aquaintences. Juno is snarky because she is guarded. It's a defense mechanism. She doesn't have friends because she, being the little indie/artsy type, doesn't quite fit with the popular kids, but has too much style for the dorks, whom she is probably closer to. We know that the girl outside of the abortion clinic knows and likes her. Juno is cordial in return. We are merely shown her relationship wit her best friend, who while a cheerleader, is clearly another misfit. The film wisely chose to focus on just a few central characters instead of the people who surround them.

I think that distaste I've read is less to do with the story, but rather that a particular critic didn't agree with the character's choices, their language, or how they think people shouldn't react to. That in my mind is smaller than anything the dialogue represents.