Posted on 05/09/2009 10:09:31 AM PDT by yetidog
Movie prolife messages are rare.
Most likely, the studio suits had some marketing research that led them to inject a dose of abortion angst into the script. The least likely explanation is that the character detail was chosen based on principle.
Juno already had a (somewhat muted) pro-life message.
Juno was unwatchable for me. The extent to which it had any prolife inclinations was offset by a mouthy heroine who was the poster child for all obnoxious, know-it-all teenage morons.
Yeah, I’ve seen the film, and I agree with you. Emma Thompson’s character regrets her abortion and wonders aloud what the child she killed would be like as an adult.
Would it be up to the suits, rather than the writer or the director? Would they really market test for something like that?
The least likely explanation is that the character detail was chosen based on principle.
Would it have been better if it were? Anything that comes across as preachy would turn an audience off.
It's doubtful that they made the movie to make a pro-life point. But the fact that somebody in Hollywood feels and acknowledges ambivalence about abortion could be a good sign.
If Roe v. Wade is ever overturned it will be because of women like the one in this film, IMO. This is 100% a women’s issue and it’s based on feeligs, not on logic or morality. (haven’t seen the film, BTW - not a Hoffman fan)
>>Juno was unwatchable for me. The extent to which it had any prolife inclinations was offset by a mouthy heroine who was the poster child for all obnoxious, know-it-all teenage morons.<<
It struck me differently. I thought the movie had a kind of stylized wittiness similar to the TV series Gilmore Girls, where most of the dialogue is just a little too clever to be true - not realistic, but (to me) entertaining and inoffensive. I guess the Juno character is a little smart-alecky, but basically a down-to-earth kid and not nearly as insufferable as many of the other teen characters in film or, indeed, in real life. Just my take, however.
Since angst over abortion is contrary to Hollywood's reflexive thinking, my guess is that it would have taken a persuasive bit of evidence from marketing to nudge them in that direction.
The point of good art is to illuminate a principle without becoming preachy about it.
Since angst over abortion is contrary to Hollywood's reflexive thinking, my guess is that it would have taken a persuasive bit of evidence from marketing to nudge them in that direction.
My own sense is that writer-director Joel Hopkins was too small and Dustin Hoffman was too big to be very much bothered by marketing and management people. This wasn't intended to be a big money making venture, but as a smaller project.
And really, studio management and marketing people would probably be more attuned to Hollywood thinking than a writer-director from outside the system.
The point of good art is to illuminate a principle without becoming preachy about it.
I would think films would be more about characters and their lives than principles.
But since Hopkins's earlier film, Jump Tomorrow was pro-life in the sense of being anti-suicide, I don't think your generalizations fit the case.
All comments on the film’s message aside, this movie must have died a really dramatic death at the box office, because I have seen, now, countless promo’s for it on TV, almost demanding that viewers buy the CD immediately! lol
I was not aware of Hopkins’ background. That may better explain the reference to abortion angst than marketing data. Yet a disparaging remark about abortion seems unlikely to have been tolerated by a studio except for execs recognizing that the balance of public opinion is less and less favorable toward abortion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.