Juno's kid
One of my favorite movies of this past year has been Juno. It's smartly written, well-acted from all involved, is pleasantly quirky, and finds the humorous side of a subject that wouldn't inspire much laughter. However, it is not without its problems. While Juno MacGuff does the best possible thing with her baby considering her situation, I have some issues with the way it was done.
** SPOILER ALERT **
Vanessa and Mark break up and start divorce proceedings, but Juno still gives the baby to Vanessa as a single mom. After that, no more mention is made of Mark. After his exit from the relationship, he's a non-issue. My first thought was, "Hey! Now the baby's not gonna have a father!" The movie seemed to imply that a male role model and father figure is not important to the development of a child. It's fantastic that Vanessa achieved her goal of motherhood, but she's only one half of what the child really needs.
Also, the biological father of the baby is Paulie Bleeker, whom Juno ends up dating by the end of the movie, but before that, the fact that he's the father of the child seems like little more than an afterthought. When Juno says she's gonna have an abortion, Paulie just (figuratively) shrugs his shoulders and says "that's fine," and doesn't think twice about the fact that he had a hand in creating this situation. IMHO, he should have a hand in resolving it, too, i.e. being a man and taking some responsibility for his own actions, and stepping up to the plate of fatherhood. Instead, the movie doesn't make him take ANY responsibility, and more or less just has him there as a happy ending for Juno, as well as good genes for Juno's kid. What I'm unhappy about is the movie's generally apathetic attitude about fatherhood.
Agree? Disagree? In the middle? Let us discuss! :-)
** SPOILER ALERT **
Vanessa and Mark break up and start divorce proceedings, but Juno still gives the baby to Vanessa as a single mom. After that, no more mention is made of Mark. After his exit from the relationship, he's a non-issue. My first thought was, "Hey! Now the baby's not gonna have a father!" The movie seemed to imply that a male role model and father figure is not important to the development of a child. It's fantastic that Vanessa achieved her goal of motherhood, but she's only one half of what the child really needs.
Also, the biological father of the baby is Paulie Bleeker, whom Juno ends up dating by the end of the movie, but before that, the fact that he's the father of the child seems like little more than an afterthought. When Juno says she's gonna have an abortion, Paulie just (figuratively) shrugs his shoulders and says "that's fine," and doesn't think twice about the fact that he had a hand in creating this situation. IMHO, he should have a hand in resolving it, too, i.e. being a man and taking some responsibility for his own actions, and stepping up to the plate of fatherhood. Instead, the movie doesn't make him take ANY responsibility, and more or less just has him there as a happy ending for Juno, as well as good genes for Juno's kid. What I'm unhappy about is the movie's generally apathetic attitude about fatherhood.
Agree? Disagree? In the middle? Let us discuss! :-)
posted by Neal Paradise at 8:27 PM
7 Comments:
My initial reaction to your point, PM, was "Pshaw, he's reading too much into that." But I think you eventually won me over--somewhat.
If this is an intentional message, it's a very, very subtle one. But you're right that the movie does place fathers on the very, very outskirts of the baby-making and -rearing picture.
Does it bother me? Not so much, only because I saw Paulie and Mark's reactions as indicative of their individual characters, not so much of men in general.
And don't forget Juno's own father, who, while not perfect, gets a pretty kind portrayal in the film.
So, basically, I'm not ready to wag my finger at Diablo Cody yet, but if her next movie features peculiarly absent fathers, I might be.
your point about the J.K. Simmons character is very well taken. he's painted as present, caring, and instrumental in the rearing of both Juno and her little sister. with Mark, i can definitely see his actions in the context of the kind of character he is: passive-aggressive, discontent, and having a far different idea of how his life should go than Vanessa. Paulie's, too, was indicative of his character. he's just a kid, and had to of been scared by the prospect of fatherhood. but i still think he should have taken a much more active role in whatever went on with the baby. after all, it's his kid, too.
and anyway, these are just questions for Diablo Cody, and not necessarily criticisms. IMHO, she deserved her Oscar.
I'll just add this (and I haven't seen the film): My sister and my sister in law both have babies, and in both cases the fathers are far from interested in their child.
It's not what I would call exemplary parenthood, but it's a phenomenon that's there, and is exaggerated by today's standards of focusing on oneself.
You know, I was thinking about this this morning, and I had a thought. I was speaking to someone yesterday about her father who wasn't involved in her life at all. She referred to him as a "sperm donor" and nothing more. It's sad, but true in some cases.
I think that this isn't just a thing in Juno (which I didn't see, btw) but it's a common idea in society. "Aw, he left you after you got pregnant? Too bad...another deadbeat dad. Oh well. Moving on..." However, if there is ever a case of a mother leaving or abandoning her child, it's horrible. "Did you hear about the woman who left her baby? Oh my word, how awful! How can a mother do such a thing??" And it does have to do with a self-centered attitude. A dad didn't want it, oh well... but a mom is expected to sacrifice her life for her child no matter what.
I was watching a show a while ago, which featured a couple who had had six babies. The unbelievable thing was that the dad admitted to only ever having changed one diaper since they were born. Think of how different that might sound if mom had said it. I think that the role of father should be taken more seriously by everyone, but I think the only way to enforce that is have the dad's start popping out the babies. Good luck with that.
Good points both, WLC and Moshe. There's an easy evolutionary explanation for the poor paternal behavior(and the muted reaction to it), but that's not really the point. And, really, it just ends up being an excuse.
So props to PM, for caring enough to want to raise the image of fatherhood. And props to WLC for pointing out the double standard. And props to Moshe, in particular, for actually living out the role of a committed father.
I agree with you, DW, that there's a basic evolutionary explanation for the behavior displayed by said fathers. The thing that really annoys me is that this thing called a "brain" is something we all share, which should allow all of us to figure out what the right thing to do is; and in the case of many "sperm donors", to quote WLC, there is an obvious malfunction with that particular operatus.
The problem is that as a result of a stupid dad acting on his instincts you get a brand new party that is disadvantaged.
Anyway, that's just me complaining.
our evolutionary history is useful for finding out why we as fathers might do what we might do, and that history is pretty grim. it explains the phenomenon that WLC mentioned, the double standard that exists between mothers and fathers. and i think knowing our history gives us more of an ability to rise above it. after all, the very idea of evolution is that we can change, and that what comes next is not necessarily determined by what came before. i don't know about the rest of you, but that gives me some hope.
Post a Comment
<< Home