There's a few people in the film industry who I think get hated on purely because it's considered "cool" to hate them. Wes Anderson for example, is one of the ones I hear the most but honestly-and this is coming from a girl who went to film school and has made video content herself-almost all his films are totally fine. Andersons work is cool too because he's got the Tim Burton disease (the "this is all i know how to do and i'm gonna beat you over the head with it") where once you've seen one of his films, you've kind of seen them all, but not to the degree Burton has, because, while Anderson does make quirky indie films, each one of his films is different enough that you could mistake it for someone elses work. Example: The Life Aquatic was shot kind of open, and with some handheld, and on a larger scale and unless I knew who made it going in, I'm not sure I could've figured it out BECAUSE Moonrise Kingdom is EXACTLY the opposite. It's tight, and concise and claustrophobic almost. It feels like a play. Two movies, made by the same guy and they feel extremely different. That's talent.
But then there's another person who gets shit on rather constantly by the mainstream audience, and that person is Diablo Cody. Now, it's understandable to not enjoy something just because it's "not your thing". I get that. Some people just don't like quirky independent flicks. Alright. But the criticisms I've read-from legitimate reviewers-is almost...sad. Juno in particular doesn't deserve HALF the hate it gets. First off, one of the main criticisms I read constantly is that the dialogue in the film isn't believable to real teenagers. Well, I'll have you know I was a teenager when this came out, and uh, yes, it IS. That WAS how people talked. Maybe not to that exact degree, as Codys writing was almost an over the top parody of the teen vernacular, but it was pretty similar. The ironic thing here is the people making this criticism are 40 year old film critics who obviously haven't been around a high school in 20 years outside of picking their kids up at the drop off spot. But let's take this to the next level, shall we? If you're going to criticize the teenagers, why not the adults? The adults act and speak just as unrealistically as the kids in this film do, and yet nobody seems to say a goddamn word about THAT.
In fact, Vanessa (Jason Batemans wife in the film) is the only person in the film who acts and reacts in a believable and rather realistic manner. That's why you sympathize with her. You shouldn't sympathize with Batemans character or even Juno because-yes while the are in rather bad situations-they're both kinda assholes. Even Juno, to a degree, is just a little asshole. But guess what...TEENAGERS ARE ASSHOLES. Batemans character is realistic in the sense of the overgrown man child who can't let go of his past dreams, but he's also an asshole. This is why you want to see Vanessa get the kid and just be happy. This is why she's relatable. Because in a sea of assholes-much like the real world-there's always one really good person.
Juno is nothing if not a parody of ridiculously cheesy cliche teenage drama pregnancy flicks that take themselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by the audience themselves.
Does the film make some flaws? Every film makes some flaws. Are the films flaws because "the film is only something a dumbed down teenage white person" would like, as I've read? No. If anything, that just shows you're a judgmental asshole. While I said before, Codys work can certainly be seen as polarizing-much like Andersons-her work isn't BAD. Young Adult was a really good character study, Juno was nothing if not purely entertaining (which is all a movie really all a movie has to be anyway, you hypercritical bastards) and her TV series The United States of Tara is BRILLIANT. Absolutely brilliant.
Does she warrant the kind of hatred she gets? I don't think so. As I said, I think the mainstream audience needs an indie person to pick on and hate because it's cool, and she's the target. Juno is a confidently shot and directed, humorously well written and decently acted film that I believe really began the age of hypercritical film review. And I realize that makes me sound RIDICULOUSLY hipster ("rah rah mainstream audience!") but I'm coming purely from a filmmaking point of view, as a viewer of the public.
Roger Ebert loved it.
Shouldn't that speak for something?
Or are you too fucking cool for him too?
But then there's another person who gets shit on rather constantly by the mainstream audience, and that person is Diablo Cody. Now, it's understandable to not enjoy something just because it's "not your thing". I get that. Some people just don't like quirky independent flicks. Alright. But the criticisms I've read-from legitimate reviewers-is almost...sad. Juno in particular doesn't deserve HALF the hate it gets. First off, one of the main criticisms I read constantly is that the dialogue in the film isn't believable to real teenagers. Well, I'll have you know I was a teenager when this came out, and uh, yes, it IS. That WAS how people talked. Maybe not to that exact degree, as Codys writing was almost an over the top parody of the teen vernacular, but it was pretty similar. The ironic thing here is the people making this criticism are 40 year old film critics who obviously haven't been around a high school in 20 years outside of picking their kids up at the drop off spot. But let's take this to the next level, shall we? If you're going to criticize the teenagers, why not the adults? The adults act and speak just as unrealistically as the kids in this film do, and yet nobody seems to say a goddamn word about THAT.
In fact, Vanessa (Jason Batemans wife in the film) is the only person in the film who acts and reacts in a believable and rather realistic manner. That's why you sympathize with her. You shouldn't sympathize with Batemans character or even Juno because-yes while the are in rather bad situations-they're both kinda assholes. Even Juno, to a degree, is just a little asshole. But guess what...TEENAGERS ARE ASSHOLES. Batemans character is realistic in the sense of the overgrown man child who can't let go of his past dreams, but he's also an asshole. This is why you want to see Vanessa get the kid and just be happy. This is why she's relatable. Because in a sea of assholes-much like the real world-there's always one really good person.
Juno is nothing if not a parody of ridiculously cheesy cliche teenage drama pregnancy flicks that take themselves far too seriously to be taken seriously by the audience themselves.
Does the film make some flaws? Every film makes some flaws. Are the films flaws because "the film is only something a dumbed down teenage white person" would like, as I've read? No. If anything, that just shows you're a judgmental asshole. While I said before, Codys work can certainly be seen as polarizing-much like Andersons-her work isn't BAD. Young Adult was a really good character study, Juno was nothing if not purely entertaining (which is all a movie really all a movie has to be anyway, you hypercritical bastards) and her TV series The United States of Tara is BRILLIANT. Absolutely brilliant.
Does she warrant the kind of hatred she gets? I don't think so. As I said, I think the mainstream audience needs an indie person to pick on and hate because it's cool, and she's the target. Juno is a confidently shot and directed, humorously well written and decently acted film that I believe really began the age of hypercritical film review. And I realize that makes me sound RIDICULOUSLY hipster ("rah rah mainstream audience!") but I'm coming purely from a filmmaking point of view, as a viewer of the public.
Roger Ebert loved it.
Shouldn't that speak for something?
Or are you too fucking cool for him too?
RSS Feed