It's been awhile since I posted, and as I'm graduating in 2 weeks, I'll have more time to post more, finally. In the mean time here is a paper I wrote for my Pop Culture and Christian formation class which fits the themes of this blog, so I figured I'd share it. It is a bit specific to the class, but I think works on its own to, even if its a bit dated. Enjoy.
The 2007 film Juno, directed by Jason Reitman, is an odd mix of genres, tones and emotions. It is a teen film, in that its focus is largely on high school students, yet it lacks the genre’s stereotypical raunch. It is a largely apolitical film that tonally achieves both pro-choice and pro-life moments. It is a comedy which is ultimately poignant and moving, perhaps even overtly and overly sweet, yet its sweetness grows out of the characters and story, and is not simply affixed for expediency. In addition to all of these peculiar juxtapositions the film somehow accomplishes the simultaneous engagement of sociological, ethical, and theological narratives surrounding teen pregnancy. What follows is a brief exploration of bits of those narratives, the manner in which they play out in the film, and how that might correspond to the lives of the adolescents who might engage this text.
Sociologically, and psychologically for that matter, Juno, the film’s protagonist, is a relatively typical high school student, though perhaps with a maturity and vocabulary beyond her years which can be overlooked for the sake of the willing suspension of disbelief. She has formed an identity along the fringes of popular culture, built around quirky, punk and alternative music, and slasher films.[1] Because of these chosen associations she experiences a degree of marginalization, which she in reality wears as a badge of honor, though as a result of her pregnancy she experiences an even further marginalization which she is less comfortable with, referring to herself as “the cautionary whale.”[2] In this tension the film recognizes the difference between the manner in which teens and people in general view themselves, the manner in which others view them, and the manner in which the individual either embraces or rejects other’s interpretations of him or her. Here Juno must grapple with what her pregnancy means to her identity. Does it irrevocably alter it, or can it be assimilated into the construct she’s already built? It’s into this social and psychological cauldron of ambiguity that the ethical and theological narratives are stirred, as Juno attempts to decide how to respond to her situation.
Juno’s first instinct upon learning she’s pregnant is to contact a local clinic, found in the Yellow Pages, which offers feminine reproductive services, asking how she might, “procure a hasty abortion.” She sets an appointment over the phone, but as she approaches the clinic there is a single protester outside, Su-Chin, who happens to be a classmate of Juno’s, with a sign shouting to nobody in particular, “All babies want to get borned.” This is the film’s first moment of inserting a theological and ethical narrative into Juno’s personal social and psychological narrative. As Juno walks past Su-Chin on her way to the clinic she is shouted after about her fetus’ development. She is told the fetus inside her has a beating heart, hair and fingernails. The last fact stops her in her tracks as she seems bemused. Upon entering the clinic she attempts light banter with the “emo” girl behind the counter who seems bored disinterested, addressing Juno in a cold, matter of fact tone. As Juno waits for her name to be called she can’t escape the sound of everyone either scratching, or tapping their fingernails, bringing to mind Su-Chin’s admonition. Juno eventually retreats from the clinic, running. As she sprints past Su-Chin, she shouts to Juno, “God appreciates your miracle!” Su-Chin is addressing Juno from her own theological narrative, which evidently sees a connection between God and some form of respect for life, and seems intended to be symbolic of the Christian pro-life position. Su-Chin’s narrative then disrupts Juno’s plans by disrupting Juno’s narrative.
In this theological confrontation, Juno’s latent theological narrative is never explicitly addressed, however the audience does witness her grappling with how these theological claims interact with the ethical decisions she is being forced to make, and how these correlate to her psychological and social contexts. This grappling however does not occur through the production of an easy moral, or even through a high moral tone, but is achieved through the film’s oddities and trivialities which in all reality end up replacing the high moral and correspondingly obvious theological tone with one which seems more akin to everyday experience, even though in Juno’s case this earthy tone is probably a bit wordier than most.[3] It is here in its banter, humor, and subsequent sweetness that the film’s theological engagement isn’t preached but is lived.
Ideally this is the manner in which the arts operate, according to Mattias Caro, inviting its audience, “to live and to examine the tensions life produces. It encourages us to remember there is more than mere political and moral posturing out there.”[4] In dramatically moving through these tensions between formation and ethics, theology and identity, and sociality and morality the film allows the issues to be holistically and incarnationally engaged in a manner which reveals their inherent inter-connectedness. Thus not only do the characters in the film end up engaging in Juno’s lived tensions and the disruption of her own theological narratives, but the film embodies these tensions in such a way that at the very least the audience emotionally engages these tensions as well.
This same pattern of engagement is at play as a second theological narrative is brought to the table, theodicy itself. As with all of the narratives engaged in the film theodicy is engaged with lightness and humor as Juno’s step-mother, Bren, asserts, “Someone’s going to get a special blessing from Jesus in this garbage dump of a situation.” This is theodicy viewed from above, through faith and with a spoonful of levity. Hers is a faith which evidently trusts that any situation can be redeemed as she attempts to make sense of why this difficulty is occurring to and in her family. It is of note that this faith is given to Juno’s step-mother’s character who only inhabits that role because of the dissolution of Juno’s parent’s marriage. Thus she embodies both the need to ask and the impulse to answer the question. But this question is not only asked by her, but in all actuality hangs over the entire movie as film critic D.G.D. Davidson observes, “This is a story of young people who have to find their way through the debris of institutions their elders have destroyed…”[5]
In their negotiation of this systematic brokenness the films characters all tend to attempt to reconstruct the heart of these institutions without resurrecting the institutions themselves, recognizing that sharing blood relations doesn’t necessitate family, but that the family an individual chooses isn’t necessarily dependent upon blood.[6] In this they are engaging theodicy and attempting to overcome it, though again perhaps not in an overtly theological manner. Thus Bren is revealed in some measure to have had a well placed faith as the adoption allows Vanessa, the adoptive mother, to realize her long pursuit of motherhood, and it allows Juno to complete her childhood.[7] Here the question of theodicy is not answered, but if the audience pauses they may be able to experience the mystery at the heart of the answer, which is perhaps all that can really be expected.
[1] Dan Morehead. “Film – Lions for Lambs, Charlie Wilson’s War, Juno.” 1 January 2008. Available at http://americasyoungtheologian.blogspot.com/2008/01/film-lions-for-lambs-charlie-wilsons.html. Internet; accessed 1 April 2009.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Gavin Richardson. “Juno – The Richardson Family Take.” 28 January 2008. Available at http://www.gavoweb.com/hit_the_back_button_to_mo/2008/01/juno-the-richar.html. Internet; accessed 1 April 2009.
[4] Mattias A. Caro. “The Artistic Dialogue of Juno.” 21 February 2008. Available at http://www.ajustsociety.org/press/forum.asp?nav=publications&cjsForumID=1091. Internet; accessed 1 April 2009.
[5] D.G.D. Davidson. “Movie Review – Juno.” 26 January 2008. Available at http://www.scificatholic.com/
2008/01/movie-review-juno.html. Internet; accessed 1 April 2009.
[6] Peter Quinn. “Juno.” 8 February 2008. Available at http://www.thinkingfaith.org/articles/
FILM_20080207_2.htm. Internet, accessed 1 April 2009.
[7] Ibid.
