More delirious, American cinematic insights into delicate situations and/or mindsets; this time brought to you under a faux umbrella of the "quirky".

Rating: 5/10 (5 August 2009)

What's more annoying than a low budgeted; dialogue heavy; 'quirky' independent film featuring young performers of whom don't come across as even trying that hard? Answer is: a low budgeted; dialogue heavy; 'quirky' independent film featuring young performers, of whom don't come across as even trying that hard, which every one, and I mean every one, likes apart from yourself. Maybe it's just me; maybe I just cannot connect with films like Juno, although my track record with quaint, somewhat dainty, introverted independent films set amidst no-where towns whilst revolving around people you feel COULD exist but probably don't isn't that bad, as I was rather a fan of Lars and the Real Girl, but Juno is a straw of some sort of finality.
Here we have a film that stomps you into the ground in its demand you enjoy it; an experience so misguided and all over the place, a film that likes to think is grounded within the boundaries of realism but in actual fact is practically taking place in an alternate universe; a film that it is impossible to invest time and effort into, with people equally impossible to watch without squirming in your seat. Juno takes place in the cut off nether-regions of Minnesota in America; a place so isolated and scary in the sorts of people that inhabit it and what they get up to, that it makes a time spent away in the icy command post Russell and co. inhabited in 1982's The Thing, look desirable. Juno takes place in a world in which people name their children things like 'Liberty Bell'; it unravels in a place in which middle aged men name their acoustic guitars; it unfolds in a place in which if you arrived there, you'd want to get the Hell back out again after spending no more than five minutes in the company of any of the characters we engage with.
Ellen Page plays the titular role, a very young and very pregnant girl whom lives with her parents; goes to a high school; drives; visits the mall and interacts with her friends in the most excruciating ways it is possible for American, high school girls to do so on screen. The film is quick to establish the juxtaposition of a seemingly perfect family set up with the scenario of a teenager in a less-than desirable situation.
On one of the first times we see her, she sits on the concrete steps of her house and a certain Paulie Bleeker (Cera) jogs by in his running gear. She gazes at him, and catches a glimpse of certain parts of his body through his gear. Problem is; if the gender roles had been reversed here, and it had been told through a male perspective under this false, pretentious umbrella of quaint and quirkiness in a world that doesn't exist; and the character that runs by had been female, there'd probably be an uproar. It's feminism gone mad, and I'm all for feminism – I think this 'high school comedy' sub-genre has had some dismal efforts of late, what with films like Superbad; films that take the male perspective and just deliver totally out of order tails about how women exist and should be treated, but Juno is so mind numbingly, bash-your-head-against-the-wall annoying in its dainty atmosphere and false, romanticised approach to a subject matter completely ill suited to the aesthetic Juno is aiming for, that it has to be considered as frightening as things like Superbad, only for different reasons.
So where do we go from here; well, her parents/guardians/whoever find out and Juno hits on the notion she will give the baby up for adoption. But, to whom? Why, the equally quirky/dainty/flimsy/cooky (any adjective ending in 'y', sounds like 'e') middle-class couple Mark (Bateman) and Vanessa (Garner) Loring! How inspired. Given the subject matter, the film comes across as a soppy and oddly harmless piece that I think very much underestimates its subject matter, and the Boring family's (sorry, I meant "Loring" family's) attitudes are the visual representation of the film's burning problem: 'What do we want to do?'; 'How do we want to do it?' 'Am I (Are we) doing the right thing here?'. The film's secondary study, twinned with its overall failings, revolves around indecision.
As characters, Garner's Vanessa is infuriatingly annoying. She comes complete with an energetic characteristic which just makes her constantly pressing and persistent twinned with the fact her smile, teeth and ear-bleedingly tinny, 'nails-down-a-blackboard' voice do nothing for you as you attempt to invest time and emotion with these people and predicaments. Juno even feels the need, out of nowhere and rather ill-advised in my opinion, to break off into some sort of creepy, would-be relationship between the titular character and Mark, with whom they frequently branch off into tired, meandering, uninspiring and frankly quite dull passages of talk about popular music.
So the film ponders and wades on, complete with drippy soundtrack and with a generally wet feel to it all. There's a scene at a shopping mall in which, if there was a little light in the corner of your screen, it would begin blinking to let you know moral choices; decisions and responsibility etc. is about to be played out, when Juno sees a mother and child very much enjoying one another's company and, you know what? Juno thinks; she ponders and asks herself some questions about really wanting to give it away – where everyone takes a collective sigh, I take a collective breath as I hold in pent-up rage. As what Juno really wants is called into question, so to is what the would-be foster parents really want, both in a sequence that will end with the rug being yanked out from under our feet, in a highly annoying manner. I found Juno a stroppy, laborious experience that was frequently painful and consistently frustrating.