The Moviegoer: Juno, Hillary and Frontlash

The past two weeks have seen two different contests with little, and much, in common: The 80th Academy Awards and the not-so-super Tuesday primaries in Vermont, Ohio, Rhode Island and Texas. Both were sold with a fair degree of hype, both had surprises and both had definitive winners. Juno won Best Original Screenplay honors for Diablo Cody; Hillary Clinton 'took' Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. But as the proverb reminds us, the race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong; winning doesn't mean you should have won. Juno MacGuff and Hillary Clinton don't have much in common, but they've both provoked powerful antagonistic reactions from many observers in their respective spheres. This has led the divergent supporters of both these recent victors to suggest that there's a backlash against them. But I would suggest that the phrase 'backlash' carries certain connotations, and implies the victim is suffering the brunt of an irrational hatred that goes counter to earlier approval; an irrational hatred that may, in fact, be all the more bitter when that earlier approval curdled in the heat of public enthusiasm. ("Yeah, I liked Feist's The Reminder, but when they started using "1234" in the iPod ad, I stopped liking her. ...")

I would suggest that in both these cases, 'backlash' does not, in fact, describe what many people are feeling. Many people are not bearing a hypocritical grudge against Juno and/or Hillary as part of an irrational hatred; many people have a highly legitimate, well thought-out, principled, rational dislike of Juno and/or Hillary. But those concerns and criticisms are grouped together under the category of backlash, and thus rejected, rebuked, denied and dismissed. But many of the concerns and criticisms people have for both are not, in fact, backlash; they are frontlash, and they are worth examining.

When I finally saw Juno -- after its rapturous reception at the Toronto and Venice Film Festivals -- I felt a little of what I call Peggy Lee effect: Is that all there is? Juno seemed like a nice little movie, and I choose both those adjectives quite specifically. Much like Garden State or Napoleon Dynamite, Juno was hailed as a terrific independent film by people who don't normally see independent films. And putting aside the legitimate question of just how 'independent' Fox Searchlight is, I will note that while at this year's Toronto International Film Festival, I saw a platoon of young people dressed in the track uniform of Juno's school, a funny breezy bit of visual marketing -- which, of course, was not grassroots pluck but rather Astroturf P.R. bought-and-paid-for from the Murdoch empire's coffers.

And these things have nothing to do with the merits, or lack thereof, of the film itself, but looking at those, what is Juno in fact being praised for? For quick, quotable dialogue that's going to age about as well as a Belgian waffle, like "Honest to blog," "This is one doodle that can't be undid" and "For shizz, I am up the spout?" For presenting us with a young woman, smart, clever and quick and centered, who is not smart, clever, quick and centered enough to arrange some -- or any -- kind of contraception before a premeditated sexual act? (And I know -- pills fail, condoms break, nothing's infallible -- but the fact Juno's script never mentions the title character's contraceptive responsibilities or choices in relation to sex is a cop-out. Or, put another way, when Knocked Up is more sincere about sexual responsibility than your plucky little celebration of quirk, you're in trouble.) For reminding us that here in America, things tend to turn out okay if you're White and well-off? For the amazing story of Ms. Cody herself? (Saying that the press wouldn't be going quite so mad for Ms. Cody if she weren't a striking young lady with a compelling back story isn't sexist; it's confirming the unconscious sexism of most mainstream press covering entertainment.) For Juno's fantasy of friction-free-feminism -- Hey, ladies, everything works out okay just super, because you're awesome! -- which looks like the wish-fulfillment dreams of a privileged child compared to the adult realism of 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days or Persepolis? (Recent ads for Persepolis have used a pull quote comparing the film to Juno; this is like seeing an ad suggesting that you may like filet mignon, as it contains beef, just like a Big Mac.)

As for the frontlash toward Hillary Clinton, it is entirely possible that her chances are enhanced and assisted by the history-making potential precedent that, if elected, she would be the first woman president. But voting for Hillary Clinton solely out of the hope she'll be our first woman president is as intrinsically wrong as voting against solely out of the fear she'll be our first woman president. And contrasting the fuzzy hopes about Mrs. Clinton as president against her prior votes and record evokes the classic feminist slogan about Margaret Thatcher: "She may be a woman, but she ain't no sister." Much of Clinton's campaign is built around her hope of passing universal health care; much of her recent rhetoric has revolved around reforming the North American Free Trade Agreement. Should it not be noted that Clinton already tried and already failed to create universal health care? Should it not be noted that NAFTA -- a gift to corporations and stockholders who profit from lower wages and safety standards in Mexico, a curse to Canadian and American workers who have seen wages drop and jobs disappear -- was passed during her husband's administration? At what point does the desire to extend a second chance shift into the possibility of getting fooled again? Clinton speaks of 'experience,' but what in recent American history -- in economic policy, in foreign affairs, in domestic politics -- would suggest that having had 'experience' in defining those things is something to be rewarded?

Of course, the stakes in the two divergent contests are different; Cody's win may mean she'll get further work (and that we'll be cursed with at least four Juno-like movies in theaters within the next year), but it does not mean that Ms. Cody will have to take any unexpected 3:00 a.m. calls about political crises. (Also, Ms. Cody's win did not involve her or Fox Searchlight suggesting that an Oscar victory for Tony Gilroy's screenplay for Michael Clayton over her work would endanger your children's lives.) But if you are one of the many who are not excited about Juno or Hillary, the next time someone asks how you could possibly be against those two plucky can-do underdog stories and alleges you're just recently become part of the backlash, look them in the eye, explain how you've been part of the frontlash for a while, and then tell them why. Juno may now be enshrined in Hollywood history, but the election's a long way off, a lot more than a gold statue's on the line, and a little well thought-out, principled, rational dislike might still have an effect.

Comments

[melann830]

Mr. Rocchi,

I disagree with you on your assessment of the the wins of the movie Juno and on Hillary Clinton wins of the primaries. As a woman, this movie garnered attention not only because of its quirky dialogue, but because of the decision of Fox Searchlight (owned as you pointed out by a conservative force-Murdoch) to put out a movie that deals with the topic of teen pregnancy in today's world in such an honest, forthright, decent and non-judgemental manner. This is an unfortunate part of our culture and we have to deal with this issue in a straightforward manner. The lead character was forced to make tough decisions, as millions of women before her did. Yes, she messed up and did not use contraception. But it is how she chose to deal with her pregnancy that moved people into rooting for her and this movie. With so many women opting for abortions, Juno chose to do what was in the best interest of the baby. She did so with clarity, courage and compassion. I can only imagine that giving up one's child has to be torture, even for someone this young. Also, they raised the issue of single motherhood (Jennifer garner's character)and how one never knows the circumstances they will face ahead in being a parent. In the end, despite the obstacles put forth by Jason Bateman's character, Juno still puts her baby first and allows Jennifer Garner's character to raise it knowing that she too will be a single mother, a prepared single mother. Now on to Hillary's win, while universal healthcare failed to get done the first time, this time there will be no stopping it. Many who voted for her want universal healthcare. While I am all for choice, there is no room for choice with respect to this issue and voters in Ohio know it. We all know that part of the reason everyone was so reluctant to pass this measure was largely due in part to rejection at having the first lady head the panel. They all felt threatened by having to give up their greedy ways. Certain members of congress did not appreciate having a woman in charge of this either. May I point out that no male president has yet to resolve this issue either. At least she put the wheels in motion, a point that even Obama himself has praised. You can all claim sexism played no role in this, but you are dead wrong. Even civilians were against her having a role as a woman in major policy making. They still are with comments like, " This country is not ready for a female president yet." Well, when will this country be ready? The answer is never. It will never be ready unless someone forges ahead and challenges the status quo with respect to this issue. Hillary has challenged the status quo on both counts: healthcare and having a female president. Like Juno, even after experiencing an upset, she resiliently rebounded and is trying to bring forth a positive change in the lives of millions of Americans -and their babies. She is trying to reduce the rate of abortions, by reducing the number of unwanted preganancies in this country and create healthcare which we can all obtain in an equitable manner. Yet she is not Juno alone, it is us collectively who represent Juno, we have a big problem with healthcare and Nafta and many of us are rooting for her and ourselves to correct these problems. We are trusting her-the prepared one(yes, she is also like the Jennifer Garner character), with our babies- healthcare and Nafta. While experience may not be something you feel is significant or should be rewarded, it is a major criteria in selecting candidates to fill a job. I'm sure you have tried to secure more than one job in life and know that many employers seek qualified and experienced people. Juno, like Clinton is a champion for all us Americans who have stumbled, but refuse to be kept down and for those who like Clinton points out," have been counted out, but refuse to be knocked out." This is what we all aspire to have and what we teach our children-RESILIENCY. We all make mistakes, but it is how we try to resolve our mistakes that matters and if no one is willing to give each other a chance at resolution time, we will never truly grow as a people or a nation.

[Promise]

I agree with most of what's said in this column and I do like the term "frontlash" for conscious dislike of a person (or a movie). Hillary is so used to blaming the Right Wing Conspiracy and Ken Starr for her woes, and now she's comparing Obama to Ken Starr (!) So "frontlash" is great--I hope it catches on. I do not, however, see Hillary as an underdog...which you mentioned. I haven't seen Juno so I don't know if she is or not. Hillary was born into a prosperous middle class white family in a comfortable suburb of Chicago and had the best education. Hardly an underdog!

[braveryexists]

Does anybody, even her supporters, view Hillary Clinton as a 'plucky little underdog story'? Was this article a political critique, the birth of a new buzzword, or merely an experiment in how much torture one metaphor can withstand before collapsing into complete incoherence?

[DemandTruth]

Once again, the Clinton campaign played the press (and therefore most Americans who still swallow what they say as whole truth) like a fiddle. The truth is that Clinton was NOT the underdog in either Texas or Ohio. Truth is, Clinton was AHEAD in the polls in both states by 20 points!!! I'm not sure how it became "common knowledge" that Obama would win these states. Maybe with all the press talk about how Clinton HAD to win those states to stay in the game, the very fact that she most likely WOULD win those states got lost (read: ignored). Maybe the press just wanted to create more excitement for the horserace, I don't know. But what I DO know is that while Clinton won by a significant percentage in Ohio, she did NOT hold on to her 20 point lead. And she BARELY squeaked by in Texas. Obama caught her and almost passed her, coming from 20 points behind.

The truth is that regardless of the entire country, HE was the "underdog" in those states. That truth, if anyone (besides Kerry the other night) bothered to point it out, might cut into the Clinton/MSM - created theme of "she stopped Obama's momentum". The TRUTH is that he still has momentum. He had enough momentum to gain 16 points in Texas in one month, in the face of perpetual "kitchen sink and then some" hypocritical attacks from Clinton. And attacks that were based on spin and lies - that again the MSM made sure we swallowed whole and did not question. And Republican pied pipers directing their listening sheep to go out and vote for Clinton too!

This is just one more piece of evidence to prove that the MSM will do everything in their power to advance the agenda of the Right (yes, Hillary now qualifies based on her behavior and campaign) and never question their actions or motives, while repeating baseless propaganda about anyone remotely considered left-of-center.

[melann830]

Clinton did become the underdog in Texas by a few points. Where were you on the weekend before the primaries? It was reported that she had a lead in Ohio, but the gap had reportedly closed in Texas and Obama was reported the probable winner of that state. Also, with respect to momentum, no one is denying that Obama has exhibited momentum or that he isn't a formidable opponent. But you can not deny that his campaign hasn't played tricks of their own against her, like trying to rob Puerto Ricans of their voice by wheeling and dealing with the suspected corrupt governor of Puerto Rico, Anibal Acevedo-Vila to declare that a caucus and not a primary would be held. The very head of the Democratic Party held a vote to overturn this horrific violation of Puerto Rican's civil rights and thankfully a primary will be held in June. You all bash Hillary, but if you persist I will continue to bash your opponent as vindictively as you do mine. Trust me, when I'm done, Hillary will be Mother Teresa to your Obama's multi-dictator like persona. Obama is not truly representative of liberal agendas as you all would like to believe, does oppressing an island of people who serve and die in our wars seem fair and liberal? Keep dreaming and one day those promising dreams will become harsh nightmarish realities with no where to escape.

[lenners]

oh and Hillary trying and failing to pass universal healthcare works against her...I suppose thats the same backwards logic you can use to prove Obama makes a better president BECAUSE he has less experience.

[idontthinkthisishelping]

Hillary was so -- not divisive, because it turned out she had NO allies inside the beltway -- that the mere concept of healthcare reform was radioactive for 8 years, and considered less important than the last 8 years of Constitution reform.

Her campaign warchests swelled with donations from pharma and health insurance lobbies -- until they went broke, then they swelled with money who's origin we're not entirely certain of. Something about a "pocket."

She voted to give George W. Bush unfettered permission to invade Iraq; assuming he wouldn't use it until he had completely exhausted every diplomatic angle (and some might argue that he had) makes her judgment not questionable, but completely moronic, but after her endorsing John McCain for President today, it appears she has for some time come back to the party she was originally an activist for.

Obama did not support NAFTA. He did not vote for the war. (saying that vote wasn't about the war is like saying ethanol might be good for the environment, parroting an administration that does not believe in global warming and who enjoy the environment by having someone remove a dove from a cage and then shooting it (and any nearby lawyers, but I'm not complaining.)

He may have been cutting C4 into grilled-cheese-sized patties that will easily fit in your child's lunchbox in his Madras (you did notice that Illinois is now officially an Islamic state, so I do see your fear there...) and therefore didn't have the opportunity to show his true color. I mean colors, sorry; there's no evidence he's monochromatic. That I know of.

But we should punish someone who did not display such consistent and egregious errors in judgment (assuming she really sees either as a mistake) by voting for someone who has done nothing but maintain a record that promises even more of the same?

Who really gets punished?

Will this get our macho, misogynistic soldiers to recognize that women DO make superior leaders as they march to their deaths in Iran? Is this really the symbol for feminism and feminist achievement you want to float? Is this who you hope your daughter admires, emulates and God willing eventually becomes?

[lenners]

uhhh, have you ever read any of the comments on a HuffPost blog that even mentions Hillary...?

If they are rational then you can shoot me now.

[idontthinkthisishelping]

Why are you so allergic to factual support and example?

[hallelujahanyway]

Well said.!

I have been, ah, *put off*, by both since well before all the talk of backlashes started.

Hillary for being a grasping opportunist with (as we see more and more) very flexible scruples,
"Juno" for reducing a serious issue (teen pregnancy) to something not only adorable, but easily resolved.

[heywhat]

I believe it has been previously noted that Senator Clinton was against her husband's support of NAFTA and I think it has been established that Senator Obama's cred on NAFTA is just a tad shaky. And is your health care point that If you fail at something you should give up?

http://strictlyanecdotal.com

[DemandTruth]

Oh, yes. I'm sure you must be right. Pay no attention to the DIRECT QUOTES FROM HILLARY CLINTON:

According to NBC's Meet the Press, in 2004, Clinton said, "I think, on balance, NAFTA has been good for New York and America."

The Associated Press reported on 3/6/96 that she said, "NAFTA is proving its worth" and later praising NAFTA as "a free and fair trade agreement."

In her memoir, Clinton trumpeted her husband's "successes on the budget, the Brady bill and NAFTA."

In 1998, Bloomberg News reports that she praised corporations for mounting "a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA." Another direct quote.

[OttoMann]

Using Juno as the example, the backlash didn't come about because certain people loved it, and then later decided they didn't love it. What happened was, a bunch of people loved it, OTHER people heard it was great, and then were disappointed when they saw it. (The first group had no, or low, expectations, so their reaction was based on that. The second group had high expectations, thus much opportunity for disappointment and letdown.)

Although you cite Hillary, the same can be said for Obama. The first group gets jacked up about this new thing on the scene, and creates a lot of buzz. The second group, mainstream Dems, hears all the excitement and says, how much substance is there really here? It may not be backlash, as you point out; it may simply be everyone else's first opportunity at "frontlash."

It could be, that both Hillary and Obama are Juno: a good movie, with certain charms, but not a GREAT movie -- but compared to the current competition of crap, they SEEM exciting.