Jeff Wells is enthused, and rightly so, about New York Times' critic Manohla Dargis' review of Cristian Minghu's spectacular 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, and I can't say I blame him. Dargis is both a passionate and astute critic, and this film brings out both those qualities in their fiercest, most pursuasive potencies. I also commend you to J. Hoberman's notice on the film in The Village Voice, which not only sums up Minghu's picture beautifully but also presents the only overview of abortion/not-abortion-in-2007-film that didn't make me roll my eyes. His perspective on Juno is mordantly hilarious and totally right-on.
My own review of 4 Months is, frankly, a turgid piece of hackwork that is appalling compared to these brilliant considerations does not reach the inspired heights of those pieces, but as you will see, I'm as enthused about the movie as Dargis and Hoberman are. So see it, why don't you?
Can someone please explain to me what the deal is with Armond White? Is he considered a crank by the other reputable film critics, or is he given a pass, people chalk it up to Armond just being Armond. He seems like nothing more than a reactionary, and as per his m.o., he waited until the verdict was in on 4,3,2, to announce that everyone who says it heralds something new is full of shit. I mean, isn't that the upshot of all of his reviews, i.e., everyone is full of shit except for me, Armond White? Am I missing the joke? He ended his review of Cloverfield by comparing to the work of who? Guess. You'll never guess. Is he really that intellectually lazy?
Posted by: Chad Channing | January 24, 2008 at 10:46 PM
Hmm. I was with him until he said "Still, disgusted by the yucky receptionist at her local women's clinic, Juno decides to have her baby." That's... not what I saw. It seemed clear to me from the series of twitchy increasingly rapid-fire shots of people in the waiting room that she was completely freaking out about the entire situation, and about the prospect of having an abortion.
"Juno" certainly flaked out by not having anyone talk to her about abortion as an actual possibility, and by having her blithely say that she barely even felt the pregnancy - where was the bloating, the morning sickness, the hormonal mood swings? - but it at least seemed like it was in character for her not to be able to articulate why she couldn't handle the abortion clinic. Or for her and her friend to see it as an easy out and then not have any response or resources when it's not.
(And Vanessa didn't seem like a deserving careerwoman to me, but like a scarily controlling woman with very weak social skills who probably shouldn't have kids until she deals with those issues... but maybe that's just me!)
Posted by: oakling | January 24, 2008 at 11:44 PM
Yeah, maybe calling it "totally" right-on was a bit excessive, since it's the fingernail remark more than the receptionist that gets Juno to thinking...still, I was impressed with J.'s post-modern-nativity call. And agreed—Vanessa's more of a basket case than would ever be accepted by any bona-fide adoption place, and Juno's solidarity with her feels more like revenge against an irresponsible male than any kind of rationally laudable decision. But other than THAT...
Posted by: Glenn Kenny | January 25, 2008 at 12:29 AM
Manohla certainly knows how to sling adjectives around, but phrases like "the camera doesn't follow the action, it expresses consciousness itself" are just hot air. Her ultimate praise for the film is that it has "palpably real women at its center" -- as empty and meaningless a critical cliche as they come.
Posted by: Matthew Arnold | January 25, 2008 at 10:35 AM