Juno and The Savages February 17, 2008

In our quest to do a better job as media consumers, we’ve been something of a movie run of late, having knocked out these two Oscar-nominated films (this week, I plan on seeing No Country for Old Men while Rick is out of town–he no likey the violence).

I had slightly high expectations of these films: for Juno, it was the “hype” and the real-life Ellen Page, who reminds me of a cool student or something; for The Savages, it was the powerhouse duo of Linney and Hoffman, as well as seeing a Tamara Jenkins movie, whose Slums of Beverly Hills was pretty entertaining way back when.

They are also tied in interesting ways: both have best actress and best original screenplay nominations; both have strong-willed, slightly odd female protagonists; both are written by women; both are about the strange qualities of families. And yet, to sound like a horrible compare/contrast essay, they are quite different.

And, overall, neither of them disappointed. Rick ended up liking Juno better than The Savages; I don’t quite know where I stand, but I think they’re pretty even. Interestingly, I also don’t think either of them deserve the Oscars they share nominations for. Mind you, I think Page and Linney are wonderful, but I have to imagine that Christie blows them out of the water. If I had to choose, though, I’d go with Linney — like Day-Lewis, she so inhabits this role, that she seems so different from the woman in, say, Love Actually.

Now, let’s talk screenplay. Michael Clayton should win, because it had a great plot and great lines. The Savages has a decent plot, but I somehow felt that the Hoffman character was a bit underwritten: Linney’s character is all there — an insufferable 35-year-old who just needs to grow up — but Hoffman too seems stunted, but we don’t get to see exactly why, or care whether he gets out of it. I also felt that the film was a bit too sweet overall: I expected more savagery. As for Juno’s screenplay, it was very entertaining, and I didn’t actually keep up with a twist, so that’s good. However, the first few minutes are largely unforgivable: they are too twee by half, cleverness parading itself around like a float on Mardi Gras, so much so that if the film were a person, I would have slapped it. It’s that annoying (there’s another plot point I’ll complain about in the comments so as not to spoil). There wasn’t such a slip in Michael Clayton, and it fully fleshed out its main characters, so it gets my nod.

Getting away from the Oscars, both films featured some great acting that was really genuine: besides Page, Michael Cera, Allison Janney, and J.K. Simmons were all really affecting — I loved them — and Garner wasn’t nearly as boring as I expected her to be; besides Linney, Hoffman was wonderful in what he was given.

As for the direction, you can tell the ages of both directors: Reitman seems to want to show you how clever he is, whereas Jenkins lingers on images and ideas much longer. I enjoyed the ending of Juno quite a bit, but that’s really the only moment where he provides a breath; there are lingering moments over desolate landscapes provided by Jenkins which really add to the feel of the film.

They are both good, and I’m glad they were both nominated. They of course don’t hold candles to There Will Be Blood, but that’s a pretty tough task.