Young Adult (Jason Reitman, 2011)

[mfunk9786]

Young Adult is easily Jason Reitman's best film. Working from a beautifully written script from Diablo Cody (who seems to have taken the sheer bile that's been spat at her as constructive criticism rather than a challenge to do more of the same quirky, pop culture-y work); Reitman must have realized what gold he had here on the page and with his cast (Charlize Theron deserves the Oscar for this - though I haven't yet seen Streep or Mara's much lauded performances) and just let the camera roll. It's a film that just gets it - these characters and locations are real and lived-in, the dialogue rings true, the conversations are disturbingly similar to the ones you know you've had with old high school friends or foes in the years since you've graduated. At the core of the somewhat high concept of the film, we've got Theron - her character is a study in delusion, alcoholism, narcissism, shame. I haven't the slightest clue where an incredibly successful and worldly woman like Theron was able to pull this character from, but she does it with frightening accuracy. Her scenes with Patton Oswalt are a pure joy to watch unfold - they exchange knowing glances, enabling one another's worst habits and forming a very strange bond over their lack of emotional growth. There are two scenes in succession towards the end of the film, one at a baby naming ceremony, and the next at Oswalt's home, that are so uncomfortable that I was clenching my armrests like I was at a midnight screening of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Oswalt gets a lot of great moments later on in the film - it must be difficult to wring such a touching performance out of what essentially amounts to a tragically stunted man-child of a character, but he finds the humanity in every single moment. This is a really special piece of work - one of the best films of what's shaping up to be the best year in American cinema since 2007 by a long shot.

[Professor Wagstaff]

There's a theme running through Reitman's films where he likes to take these characters with strong-willed personalities and poke holes into the attitudes by which they live life. In Juno, Ellen Page is forever insisting on her maturity during the course of her pregnancy, but the act of giving up her baby at the end leaves her vulnberable and shows how young she really is. In Up in the Air, George Clooney is so confident that his isolationist lifestyle works he gives seminars preaching about it, but the need for an actual human connection grows too strong and undoes him. With Young Adult, we have an interesting reversal. Charlize Theron's Mavis is miserable to begin with (which accounts for the drinking, one night stands, career tailspin, etc.) so her attitude is to return to a time (high school) when life made sense. After all, she's been reliving it for years through her novels (which were also once successful). Unlike Clooney's Ryan Bingham who grows to see value in wanting simpler things, Mavis cannot change her attitude that small-town, middle class existence is some kind of admission of failure. For me, I was surprised by how much I related and empathized with Mavis despite how unlikable she is. Young Adult is playing better for me the more I think about it.

Spoiler

Also, Oswalt speech about his and Mavis's relationship in high school and now, talking about when they were 'at their best' is terrific and truly sad, especially when it becomes clear this will not end well for either of them.

[Andre Jurieu]

This was easily the bleakest mainstream movie I've seen in some time and may have been one of the most painful movie experiences I've ever encountered. In fact, this was, flat-out, one of the most cringe-inducing character-studies I've seen, complete with face-in hands while head-shaking during nearly ever scene, due mostly to the sheer awkwardness of almost every set-up and the predictably poor choices the characters make repeatedly. I actually mean those comments as praise, because I was quite impressed and pleasantly surprised that Reitman, Cody, & Co. held firm to their central premise and remained consistent with their characters' behavior throughout the film, though truthfully I didn't find the movie to as successful as I had hoped. As my friend pointed out afterward, it's the type of movie where you find yourself holding your breath in complete dread of what's about to happen next, because this is basically the same as watching an extended car-crash or a very subtle horror movie. At one point (once you've watched the movie, it's fairly obvious which scene I'm referencing), I actually whispered to my sister, who was sitting beside me, "this is going to get much much worse." (feel free to use that for a snarky comment). In some ways this reminded me of a feminine flip-side to Solitary Man, which kind of examined a similar character who also can't help but make destructive decisions, only from the masculine POV and at a different stage of life.

I thought the central premise Young Adult was fairly simple and familiar, but the filmmakers are able to make things feel more realistic because they avoid redeeming Mavis in any extensive or permanent fashion, thereby making the proceedings a bit more engaging and fascinating than usual. It seems readily apparent that Cody is consciously avoiding every tactic from Juno that was labelled as her trademark style. Instead the script and the dialogue are far more straight-forward and natural than might be expected, thereby making the characters far more honest and believable, if only because you can understand how these characters arrive at these circumstances. Much of that might be due to the fact that Cody is likely inspired by, or drawing from, or just including certain auto-biographical elements from her own experience - though I'm hoping, for her sake, that these aspects are adapted and exaggerated with considerably liberty. I get the sense that much of the premise was arrived at by Cody asking herself "what if I handled my minor celebrity in all the wrong ways." I'm also really thankful that I've never had conversations that are even remotely close to the ones included and explored in this movie, though I've certainly heard others make comments that sound incredibly familiar to the lines that Cody and her crew have crafted.

However, as honest as the filmmakers are with their depiction of the central characters, the resolution of the story felt a little clunky and ineffective to me. I certainly appreciated that Reitman and Cody avoided the typical redemptive character-arc, but at the same time the ultimate resolution felt rather quick and easy. That might actually suit the internal logic of the character, but it kind of also felt like an undemanding way of concluding the character-study, just to ensure they could trim down the running time and leave everything on a purposely vague and ambiguous note, thus avoiding making any clear choices on their own perspective and conclusions of the central character.

I haven't the slightest clue where an incredibly successful and worldly woman like Theron was able to pull this character from...

I thoroughly enjoyed Theron's performance in this, particularly because she wasn't really afraid to make this character a complete mess of a human being, but also in an understandable fashion. However, I thought it would be rather easy for her to understand this type of personality. Considering that Theron is a successful actress who moved away from a smaller community in South Africa to become an award-winning Hollywood star, it's pretty easy to imagine that she could somewhat relate, at least on some level, to Mavis' feelings of superiority and dismissive attitude towards her hometown. It's also quite possible that Theron encountered this type of personality in high school or in Hollywood over the years, if she couldn't draw from her own experience either as a member of the in-crowd or outcasts. As for the alcoholism, I think Theron's dad was an alcoholic, so there's some personal experience with that subject matter.

...it must be difficult to wring such a touching performance out of what essentially amounts to a tragically stunted man-child of a character, but he finds the humanity in every single moment

Again, I thought this was fairly straight-forward. Since I like Oswalt, I thought his performance was solid stuff, but I didn't think it was anything spectacular in terms of demonstrating range or surprising the audience with anything particularly unexpected. Oswalt really only has one or two scenes that require him to exert himself and both are done in a uncomplicated manner that doesn't require Oswalt to step far beyond his limits. I really thought the entire premise of the character kind of lends itself to a general sympathy, with the extreme-nature of the tragedy within his past providing us enough context and explanation for his stunted emotional development, thereby providing a really valid excuse for his stagnation. Realistically, I thought much of what's accomplished with the character is done through the simple fact that they cast Oswalt, since he possesses a very genuine humanity in most of his projects.

Spoiler

Also, Oswalt speech about his and Mavis's relationship in high school and now, talking about when they were 'at their best' is terrific and truly sad, especially when it becomes clear this will not end well for either of them

Honestly, I found that scene to be touching, but also quite problematic in terms of the characters' interaction at that point. It feels like the filmmakers are attempting to find an emotional revelation about their characters, but the problem is that it's not really very observant of their personalities, and rather camouflages any actual epiphany with another - rather obvious - perspective on their past history.

Spoiler

A great deal of the emotion within that scene is not just because Matt feels he was overlooked by Mavis during their past lives, but because of the tragedy that befalls Matt afterwards. Yet I couldn't shake the feeling that Matt's tragedy - while relevant as to the dynamics of their past and current history - should never have even been factored into this particular part of the equation (kind of like how whether Private Ryan lives a full and decent life should not have factored into whether or not they decide to save him). It shouldn't matter when either of them was at their "best", whether before or after high school, or before or after their shared experience in high school, or before or after whatever personal traumas they have experienced. In my mind, the point is that Mavis overlooks everyone at any stage of her life, and that Matt has always been overlooked, so the dialogue in that scene, which concentrated a great deal on what each character viewed as their pinnacle and missed opportunities due to unnecessary boundaries established regarding social status - seemed kind of misguided because it chose to concentrate on how they had related to each other in the past, rather than figuring out how they relate to others in general. It felt like a scene that existed entirely by itself, without much emphasis placed on trying to gain a greater understanding of their actual character flaws.

[Brian C]

I really didn't see the value in this - it invents a character who deserves to be humiliated, and proceeds to humiliate her. She's a fish in a barrel, basically. And then it lets her off the hook by having a minor character give a speech straight out of bizarro world.

I thought it was a nasty, ugly piece of pure scorn.

[mfunk9786]

You've obviously never met someone like Theron's character - they're out there, unfortunately.

[FerdinandGriffon]

You've obviously never met someone like Theron's character - they're out there, unfortunately.

It's not a question of whether a certain personality type exists in reality or not, it's a question of whether the existence of such people is fruitfully explored in the work of fiction. Brian seems to think it isn't.

This is the same problem I have with most of Woody Allen's recent output. Sure, I've encountered people like Rachel McAdams or her parents in Midnight in Paris before. But do I really gain anything from watching them being ridiculed, deservedly or otherwise? A Tall Dark Stranger especially seemed to consist of nothing but setting up despicable or pathetic characters and then knocking them down again as if they were so many toy soldiers. A childish and useless exercise.

[Jeff]

I love the way Theron, Reitman, and company captured Mavis' arrested development. Yes, there were the more obvious things like her responding to the news of Buddy's wife being in a band ("How embarrassing!"), but it was the stuff like way she sat nervously curled up on the bathroom counter the first time she called him, that really conveyed that adolescent girl mentality she inhabited.

I agree with Andre that Oswalt didn't have to show much range here, and I suspect that the critics who really embrace the performance (which was absolutely fine) may be finding some identification with his character. There is, of course, also the tendency to overpraise when someone performs outside of the box that the public has put them in.

I felt that the ending was kind of inevitable, and was glad to see Cody and Reitman not try to avoid it.

Spoiler

Mavis lived in one of her novels. In her mind she was still the prom queen, where popularity and the envy of others was far more valuable than any other kind of success. Using this as a metric of success is her method of coping with her inability to find happiness via traditional methods. When she made the mistake of trying to artificially create that sort of happiness with Buddy, she only needed to be reminded that she was pretty and enviable in order to be sated. The fact that a minor character with whom she had no real connection can convince her of this in a way that seems cathartic for her is only evidence of her character's shallowness.

This could have been a very conventional romantic comedy, and much of is does feel formulaic, but I appreciated a character study with a completely unlikeable and irredeemable character. The only thing that really didn't work for me was

Spoiler

Mavis' relationship with Matt. It seemed out of character that she would allow herself, even momentarily, to identify with him and even more so that she would think spending the night with him would be a reasonable way to make herself feel better. Mavis seems like a character who would only be capable of viewing Matt with contempt.

This certainly feels like a leap forward for Cody, with nary a hamburger phone or homeskillet in sight, and I think it's Reitman's best since Thank You for Smoking.

[karmajuice]

I thought this film was terrible. For starters, it's terribly unfunny -- which could be forgiven, if the film were effective from a dramatic standpoint. But the writing veered between obvious and downright atrocious, the tone throughout felt terribly uneven, and the concept as a whole felt half-baked. Certainly people like Theron's character exist, but I don't think the film says anything compelling about her condition. I sorta liked the ambivalence of the ending, but that's the best I can give the film.

[hearthesilence]

I was hoping for more out of this film after hearing some (mild) good word-of-mouth, but I didn't like it either. Not bad, I like it more than Reitman and Cody's other work, but it doesn't leave behind all the things I dislike about their films. Also, too many scenes that were obnoxious and though the concept was promising, it still felt a little shallow. It tries, it's a good direction for them to take, but I still wasn't a fan.

[Brian C]

You've obviously never met someone like Theron's character - they're out there, unfortunately.

What the hell difference does it make if there are people like her out there or not? That has nothing to do with the tone with which the filmmakers treat the character, which I found unbearably smug and contemptuous. The film basically boils down to "Wow, can you believe what a BITCH this woman is?"

I feel like I've had this argument with you recently ... I think over the BDH character in 50/50. You seem to think that "people like this" deserve all the scorn the filmmakers can throw at them, and that it's justified as long as reasonable facsimiles exist in real life. That's your right, I guess, but I think it's a nasty and pointless exercise.

And at any rate, the movie gets a lot of other things wrong, too. For example, the surly hotel clerk and the clueless Macy's saleswoman, both of whom feel flown in from Neptune. What kind of small MN town has a Macy's, anyway? We're obviously dealing with a mid-size city and not the backwards hick burg that is being constantly described, and one senses that the filmmakers don't even know the difference. Oswalt's character is a disaster, existing only for the purpose of finger-wagging for the audience's benefit before succumbing to a ludicrous story development at the end. The voiceover narration by Mavis is not quite as unnecessary and poorly written as Clooney's in The Descendants, but is surely barking up the same tree. And I don't know how Patrick Wilson's character got turned into a hero by the end - why, he was the wise one all along!

[Andre Jurieu]

I felt that the ending was kind of inevitable, and was glad to see Cody and Reitman not try to avoid it.

Spoiler

Mavis lived in one of her novels. In her mind she was still the prom queen, where popularity and the envy of others was far more valuable than any other kind of success. Using this as a metric of success is her method of coping with her inability to find happiness via traditional methods. When she made the mistake of trying to artificially create that sort of happiness with Buddy, she only needed to be reminded that she was pretty and enviable in order to be sated. The fact that a minor character with whom she had no real connection can convince her of this in a way that seems cathartic for her is only evidence of her character's shallowness.

I completely agree with these comments. However, the actual execution of the scene left me rather uneasy since it seemed to invite the viewer to identify with Mavis and perceive her decision as valid, no matter how ludicrous and deluded it was. It's quite possible that this may have been Reitman's intention, but it really began to feel as if it was simply a convenient method of resolution - though I must admit that it did feel logical for the character. Perhaps this is just a case where I'm not trusting the capacity of the audience. I guess the more terrifying aspect of the scene was actually the revelation of Matt's sister, Sandra's, misguided viewpoint (I hope Collette Wolfe finds more substantial roles).

Spoiler

The only thing that really didn't work for me was Mavis' relationship with Matt. It seemed out of character that she would allow herself, even momentarily, to identify with him and even more so that she would think spending the night with him would be a reasonable way to make herself feel better. Mavis seems like a character who would only be capable of viewing Matt with contempt.

Again, completely agree. In fact, a friend commented that Matt doesn't really feel like a real person, but rather a perfect screenwriter construct created simply to be a convenient physical mirror of Mavis (she's emotionally crippled with the onset of physical manifestations, while he's physically crippled with emotional stagnation). In fact, his predicament is so sensational and his existence and interaction with Mavis is so suitable for her to confront her issues, that we thought Matt might have been able to function as an imaginary friend.

...it invents a character who deserves to be humiliated, and proceeds to humiliate her. She's a fish in a barrel, basically. And then it lets her off the hook by having a minor character give a speech straight out of bizarro world. I thought it was a nasty, ugly piece of pure scorn.

It's not a question of whether a certain personality type exists in reality or not, it's a question of whether the existence of such people is fruitfully explored in the work of fiction... do I really gain anything from watching them being ridiculed, deservedly or otherwise? ... consist of nothing but setting up despicable or pathetic characters and then knocking them down again as if they were so many toy soldiers. A childish and useless exercise.

I'm inclined to agree that the speech felt as though it came out of bizarro world, but I'm not sure the entire film was designed to humiliate/ridiculed its central character, even if she deserved the treatment she encountered (and I know Ferdinand is actually referring to the treatment of characters in another film, but I'm including it here because it seems to be relevant to the conversation about this film). In fact, I thought the film explored the character of Mavis in a rather respectful manner, perhaps too much so in the end. While she still seems immersed within an adolescent and shallow perspective, Mavis is still portrayed as a capable character, who's just floundering at this stage of her life. As detestable as this type of character is, using Theron's performance, I believe the filmmakers were able to make the character at least fascinating and engaging, and allowing the audience to gain an uncomfortable understanding of her thoughts and actions. It's not a particularly flattering portrait, but it's at least interesting. If anything, I certainly see a difference between the filmmakers' treatment of Rachel McAdams' character in Midnight in Paris (which is certainly contemptuous and dismissive) and Mavis (again, I'm aware I'm switching between comments and filmmakers here in the comparison I just created, but I simply wanted to point out the disparity in the way these characters are treated by their respective filmmakers).

[Brian C]

As detestable as this type of character is, using Theron's performance, I believe the filmmakers were able to make the character at least fascinating and engaging, and allowing the audience to gain an uncomfortable understanding of her thoughts and actions.

I just can't agree, and in my head I keep coming back to the way that Mavis always has some trash reality TV show on her TV. This strikes me as having three potential purposes, all three of which I think have some value:

1) As a rather simple-minded armchair-psychologist explanation for why Mavis thinks her behavior is appropriate,

2) Some kind of aimless social commentary about the weakening of the culture, blah blah blah

3) An invitation to the audience to see Mavis with the same smug superiority that serves as the basis for those shows' appeal.

Perhaps I'm being insufficiently generous in my reading of this aspect of the film, but it's a detail that Reitman goes out of his way to emphasize, and I'm having a difficult time coming up with a generous interpretation of it. I just don't think that the filmmakers - and Reitman especially - have any particular sympathy or even human feeling for Mavis at all. She's just a commodity to them, like the Kardashians are to MTV viewers.

In fact, a friend commented that Matt doesn't really feel like a real person, but rather a perfect screenwriter construct created simply to be a convenient physical mirror of Mavis (she's emotionally crippled with the onset of physical manifestations, while he's physically crippled with emotional stagnation). In fact, his predicament is so sensational and his existence and interaction with Mavis is so suitable for her to confront her issues, that we thought Matt might have been able to function as an imaginary friend.

Well said. My thoughts exactly.

[Andre Jurieu]

... in my head I keep coming back to the way that Mavis always has some trash reality TV show on her TV. This strikes me as having three potential purposes, all three of which I think have some value:

1) As a rather simple-minded armchair-psychologist explanation for why Mavis thinks her behavior is appropriate,

2) Some kind of aimless social commentary about the weakening of the culture, blah blah blah

3) An invitation to the audience to see Mavis with the same smug superiority that serves as the basis for those shows' appeal.

Perhaps I'm being insufficiently generous in my reading of this aspect of the film, but it's a detail that Reitman goes out of his way to emphasize, and I'm having a difficult time coming up with a generous interpretation of it. I just don't think that the filmmakers - and Reitman especially - have any particular sympathy or even human feeling for Mavis at all. She's just a commodity to them, like the Kardashians are to MTV viewers.

First off, I agree that the repeated inclusion of reality-TV is an significant aspect of the film and I do believe it's kind of applied as an easy armchair therapist's pop-culture-based psychological diagnosis of Mavis' circumstances. I also think its inclusion serves as a very mild form of social commentary and perhaps it's also aimed as a signifier of the decline of our culture (though I'm a bit hesitant on that last part).

However, I think the assumption that it's an invitation for the audience to perceive Mavis' actions through a lens tinged with smug superiority is problematic, mostly because it presumes that the entire audience cannot comprehend the phenomenon of reality-shows with anything other than automatic dismissal and contempt. As much as I detest reality-show - particularly celebrity reality-shows - I would find it difficult to assume that my tastes and perspective on this aspect of pop-culture is unquestionably correct, especially since I also watch my fair-share of trash. In fact, I've encountered a few written pieces by critics who seem to enjoy these types of shows - though perhaps with a certain ironic distance in their viewpoint - that include some interesting thoughts on the subject, if not on the quality of the specific shows.

Perhaps the default position is to assume that someone who watches these shows is inferior to those of us who detest these types of shows, but I'm not sure Reitman, Cody, and their crew are asking us to inherently dismiss Mavis as idiotic simply because she watches these shows. I would say they simply want to show that the character is obviously fascinated by these shows and perhaps somewhat influenced by the behavior displayed within these shows. I'm less inclined to state that they are making assumptions about the attitudes of their audience members (mostly because I think a great deal of the audience for the film would be fascinated by celebrity-based reality TV shows) and I'm more inclined to think that they are simply drawing a parallel between these shows and the movie itself, because they both often function as "train-wrecks." The difference here is that Reitman/Cody's movie seems to take the time to explore their character to a far greater degree than the surface scan that's generally applied in most celebrity-based reality shows.

[tarpilot]

The difference here is that Reitman/Cody's movie seems to take the time to explore their character to a far greater degree than the surface scan that's generally applied in most celebrity-based reality shows.

I haven't seen the film, but surely this isn't any kind of significant accomplishment?

[Andre Jurieu]

The difference here is that Reitman/Cody's movie seems to take the time to explore their character to a far greater degree than the surface scan that's generally applied in most celebrity-based reality shows.

I haven't seen the film, but surely this isn't any kind of significant accomplishment?

I didn't say it was any significant accomplishment. I'm merely stating that I don't believe the filmmakers are intending for the audience to automatically be contemptuous of their main character and take pleasure while watching their suffering and humiliation.

[tarpilot]

Yeah, that wasn't very generous wording on my part, especially considering how those 'ironic distance' readings of the more titillating examples almost invariably end up more interesting than any anti-"low" culture critique

[Brian C]

However, I think the assumption that it's an invitation for the audience to perceive Mavis' actions through a lens tinged with smug superiority is problematic, mostly because it presumes that the entire audience cannot comprehend the phenomenon of reality-shows with anything other than automatic dismissal and contempt....

Perhaps the default position is to assume that someone who watches these shows is inferior to those of us who detest these types of shows, but I'm not sure Reitman, Cody, and their crew are asking us to inherently dismiss Mavis as idiotic simply because she watches these shows.

I'm not saying that audiences see celebrity-reality shows with automatic dismissal and contempt, and I'm especially not trying to say that people who watch these shows are "inferior" to people who don't watch them. What I'm saying that these shows typically exist as a conduit for their viewers' contempt for the shows' subjects.

I'll try not to paint with too broad of a brush, because I've never watched the vast majority of these shows, but it seems hard to deny that most of them are explicitly marketed this way. Promos emphasize antisocial behavior, petty conflict and general tackiness; this has been true since the old days of "The Real World" and is true of even something as relatively innocuous as "American Idol" which for years was marketed on the back of Simon Cowell's insults. Something like "Jersey Shore" has taken the phenomenon to a whole new level, where disgust with the stars seems to be the entire point of the show's existence.

Really, though, isn't this the essence of a tabloid culture in the first place? We're culturally conditioned to be disgusted by characters like Mavis, a promiscuous, aggressively self-centered woman. She even has a little dog that she carries around with her, Paris Hilton style. Hell, she's even blond, because why not lay on the cultural markers as thick as possible, right? So the question is, do the filmmakers recognize the shaky ground they're treading on, and try to transcend it? Or does it pander to the audience with the obvious stereotype it's presenting? Obviously I think it's much more the latter than the former.

[Andre Jurieu]

Sorry, the holidays have made it difficult to find time to respond quickly.

What I'm saying that these shows typically exist as a conduit for their viewers' contempt for the shows' subjects... but it seems hard to deny that most of them are explicitly marketed this way. Promos emphasize antisocial behavior, petty conflict and general tackiness;... Something like "Jersey Shore" has taken the phenomenon to a whole new level, where disgust with the stars seems to be the entire point of the show's existence.

I'm inclined to agree that this is an aspect that appeals to a great deal of the viewers for these types of shows. However, I think the appeal of these shows is somewhat more complicated than merely allowing viewers to find a new target for their contempt in order to feel superior to someone. As much as these shows work on the level you've described above (and naturally just on a very basic voyeuristic level), they eventually seem to also appeal to some viewers by making the characters marginally sympathetic and relate-able, despite their extreme circumstances and ludicrous behavior. As much as I hear people state that they hate certain characters and think their behavior is detestable, these same regular viewers also seem to readily throw support behind other characters and proclaim some to be their "favorite." In fact, as much as people think the behavior of Jersey Shore is often asinine, their are many viewers who will also state that they love someone like Snooki, because of a certain character-trait. I really don't understand it, but it probably allows viewers to experience a certain vicarious thrill at witnessing people who have fewer boundaries or inhibitions.

I also think those who take a voyeuristic delight in watching these types of shows, often find a different appeal in these shows, because many are aware of the actual reasons for their own enjoyment of these shows, but view it as a guilty pleasure. Again, this kind of feeds into that detached, ironic, "meta" enjoyment of the show, where the viewer understands that all the behavior is ridiculously heightened and purposefully idiotic (and likely scripted), but still enjoys the strange hijinx.

Really, though, isn't this the essence of a tabloid culture in the first place? We're culturally conditioned to be disgusted by characters like Mavis, a promiscuous, aggressively self-centered woman.

Again, I think that might only be an accurate description of the reaction for some of the viewers. I think some (perhaps most) are disgusted at her behavior, while others might find it sympathetic, or relate-able. I know I wasn't particularly fond of her actions, but I found Theron's portrayal to render her somewhat fascinating and mildly sympathetic in her self-imposed tunnel-vision. As awful as her behavior was, there was also something quite tragic in her delusion.

She even has a little dog that she carries around with her, Paris Hilton style. Hell, she's even blond, because why not lay on the cultural markers as thick as possible, right?

Again, I think it might be problematic to assume that every viewer find Hilton to be reprehensible. Some of the audience might even find her personality to actually be appealing and see her as some sort of role-model that they might actually aspire to mimic. As sickening as that thought is to me, it's also something I think the filmmakers accounted for.

So the question is, do the filmmakers recognize the shaky ground they're treading on, and try to transcend it? Or does it pander to the audience with the obvious stereotype it's presenting?

I'm not sure it's that black-and-white.

Basically, as far as the filmmakers' choice to include celebrity-reality-TV within the context of the events they show us, I think the only thing that we can say with any certainly is that Mavis might be influenced by these shows in some fashion. My memory might not be accurate, but I don't believe we actually ever witness Mavis watching these shows and, even if we do, we aren't provided the opportunity to see how she reacts to these shows or how she perceives the actions of their main characters. We quite often just witness her waking up while these shows are on TV, which only allows us to conclusively state that she was watching the channel that often uses these shows as programming. We rarely if ever we her interacting with what's on screen and for all we know she might detest these shows and actually be contemptuous of many of the characters that litter these TV screens.

I don't think the filmmakers do achieve the level whereby they can state that the conclusively transcended the material, but I also don't believe they sought to simply provide a 1-dimensional stereotype of the specific personality. While I don't think they presented Mavis in a sympathetic fashion, I also don't believe they meant to merely use her as target of our collective scorn and ridicule. For me, it just seemed that they presented her in a matter-of-fact method, providing us some background and context for her behavior, but avoiding making any specific comment on her. I think in many cases, including mildly-celebrated personalities (Reitman and Cody) such as these, who are often thought of as over-hyped talents, a great deal of how we perceive the filmmakers' intentions replies upon our perception of the filmmakers' abilities and how much credit and leeway we provide them.

[dad1153]

Saw this the day after Christmas, right after "War Horse" (don't ask!). You gotta hand it to Reitman, Cody and Theron for not making an easy-to-like and hard-to-market movie instead of a more commercially-appealing and pop culture-savvy Hollywood vehicle you'd expect from the makers of "Juno." "Young Adult's" poor box office performance is proof that their creative decisions are turning potential movie audiences off. I myself have trouble articulating either a positive or negative opinion about "YA" (hence it's out of my Top 10 because, in all conscience, I can't honestly even tell to myself that I liked it). I don't hold it against Charlize that she's still too Hollywood-pretty to pass as a functional alcoholic (she's really good), but the role as written makes her character look a lot more foolish and out of touch than even I can buy (and yes, I know it's supposed to be that way). Mavis' plan reminded me of Kate Winslet's idea in "Revolutionary Road" to save her marriage, which just made no sense whatsoever but served as a catalyst that, like Mavis' plan to win back Buddy, kept the plot going through a lengthy portion of the movie. I liked the scenes between Diaz and Patton Oswalt but, like the scenes with Nick Krause's Sid in "The Descendants," I could never get past the movie contrievances required to get people who have no business being with/talking to one another constantly in the same scene. And yet I can't help but admire how the tension, dark humor and build-up in "Young Adult" come to a head during the baby naming ceremony. There's a 5-10 minute interval toward the end when I was literally wincing and shielding myself from the movie because the words, actions and truths being told were absolutely killer in their depiction of what small, infantile, narrow-minded people what can say/do to one another to both put them out and/or lift themselves up. Collette Wolfe's seemingly useless character is given the task of setting Mavis straight, and in doing so revealed as much ugliness about herself and Mavis does about her when she buys the bullshit (which, like all bullshit, has enough truth in it to really cut) that Sandra spoon-feeds her after yet another meaningless trist. BTW, are we supposed to assume Mavis' dog

Spoiler

nearly starved at the hotel where she left her?

Few movies shook me like "Young Adult has, especially since in my personal case (living/working in NYC for 15+ years) I'm perceived by the family to be the success story when other family members with more stability (families, children, community work, etc.) and with better work (doctors, nurses, etc.) aren't perceived as being better than me because they chose to stay near/around the regions where they were born and raised. This perception of being exceptional without actually being exceptional (though in Mavis' case her books were at one point best-sellers) is something the movie nails down perfectly. I also liked that, when Mavis gets to her hometown and/or goes about her life (shopping for ink cartridges, at the store getting food, staying at a hotel, letting the TV play reality crap she doesn't watch, etc.) it looks like the commercialized, saturated-with-advertisements generic USA streets we all see when we go around the country (AZ and Upstate NY look just like the streets in MN Mavis drives through in the movie) except for the hanful of eateries or stores that are unique to a city. It gives the movie the authenticity of a life-lived-and-being-lived environment that makes me question if we're supposed to buy the end of "Young Adult" as an uplifting one. Since the opening credits take place over extreme (and well-rendered CG if they're not real) close-ups of a cassette playing songs I wonder if we're supposed to infer that, as Mavis recorded those songs in her life that were like a pop-culture sign post to the time in her life she thought she was at her happiest, the ending implies she's actually capable of letting go of those erasable memories (not by getting rid of the tape but by not putting credence into what those songs/memories mean to her) and start a new path with a blank slate. I think I'm going to enjoy rewatching "Young Adult" (there's so much to it than what the twists and surprises showed) but it still can't pass "Up in the Air" as Reitman's best work to date, IMHO.

BTW, did anyone recognize J.K. Simmons' uncredited voice as Mavis' boss that keeps calling for her to turn in her manuscript? J.K. is rapidly becoming the Dick Miller of many directors (Raimi, Reitman, etc.).

[D_B]

Having just seen this film, it is driving me NUTS how (IMHO) people are missing the point - so what better place than the Criterion Forums for me to vent?

To wit - so many critics who should know better are letting the characters in this film define what this story is about - instead of following the sequence of events and letting THAT tell the story.

Now to ME - this film contains an enormous 3rd act switcheroo which completely reframes everything that goes before it. While the character of Matt seems like the 'voice of sanity' here - he completely misses it thus cannot be relied on to represent the ultimate intent of the writer and director.

Sorry - most of my comments are SPOILERS, so...

Spoiler

When we find out near the end Mavis miscarried Buddy's child (its important that the baby was WANTED and not aborted), this SHOULD create an entire 180 degree perspective on Buddy's previous behavior throughout the earlier part of the film. Only in RETROSPECT can one note a chilling impersonality in the way he regards this woman with whom he almost became the father he is now so enthused about being. When he sees Mavis, he treats her like an old pal, as it turns out presumably too much in emotional denial to confront their shared tragedy.

This is the icing on the cake for a world of small-town emotional denial (Mavis says she may be an alcoholic and her parents shrug it off). While Matt SEEMS like a truth-teller in the film, one would presume this being a small town he would have known about Mavis' pregnancy, and so could have figured out this had to do with her determination to 'win' Buddy back.

In no way am I trying to present Mavis as sympathetic or a 'tragic victim' - she is a selfish, pathetic mess, but I read the film as presenting her as a PRODUCT of an environment that trades on a surface of placid amiability which comes at the price of refusal to confront life's often-tragic realities.

There are several 'truths' presented in this film that I think are intended to be false:

That Mavis is a horrible person intruding on the lives of perfectly nice, decent people
- I would say, she is a woman unconsciously trying to terms with her pain and confronts a group of people who close ranks and make this impossible. (not that they do it with malicious intent or don't have good intentions, but it is classic passive aggressiveness).

That Mavis is crazy to be set off the deep edge by the birth announcement
- Her behavior is crazy insofar she herself seems unaware of her true motivations BUT the actual source of the emotional pain is not invalid. When she gets the picture of the baby, it is FORCING her to re-experience old demons she had bottled up about her and Buddy's own lost child and the revelation she cannot have children (it strikes me the spilled wine on her blouse is a metaphor for blood). She is not (as she thinks) out to 'save' Buddy from a hellish suburban existance, but she wants her old 'future' back.

Matt's sister's assertion that Mavis' life is great and everybody envies her
- Matt's sister represents the root of the delusional thinking responsible for enabling wrecks and monsters like Mavis.

While I think the film is being grossly mis-perceived, I DO think it has a major problem, which others here have touched on. For me, the description of Matt as being a contrivance (the 'anti-Mavis') is on the nose. Somehow his issues are not fully integrated into the narrative. The only reason I can think of as to why Mavis and he hook up is that Cody had no idea how to end the film and this was the best she could come up with.

That surprised me too, as I thought an earlier remark where Buddy reminds Mavis that she used to call Matt a "theater fag" would lead to a revelation that Mavis blithe cruelty is what lead to the guys beating up and injuring Matt - and there would be some climatic confrontation over this.

It's too bad the film didn't have a more solid narrative, because I think it was an ambitious, thought-provoking film. Ultimately, I have the feeling that film is a critique of an essentially heartless American drive to force everyone into a camp of 'winners' and 'losers' while refusing to confront the many ugly and heartbreaking shades of grey in-between.

To close off - Theron's performance was kick-ass - I had been thinking Viola Davis in The Help gave the performance of the year, but now I'd give it to Theron.

[Shrew]

I agree with Andre that this is terribly uncomfortable to watch, but that's kind of the point. While Mavis is (as Brian points out) a nasty character made to humiliate, the film goes out of its way to make sure that the humiliation is not satisfying. There's no comedy in that big climax (unlike in Midnight in Paris and 50/50 where the comeuppance of the shrews is obviously meant to sate the audience's rage), just a lot of pain that makes us want to look away. As horrid as Mavis's actions are, they're obviously (to both the audience and everyone at the naming party) the result of deep emotional distress, and not merely attention-seeking, which sets the film apart from reality television.

The constant presence of Kendra and her ilk in the background is less because Mavis identifies with them, and more because she's just as contemptuous of them as everyone else. She has no need to seek attention because she's convinced attention just comes, and hell, even views it as a burden like her Waverly Prep cipher. She's so caught up in herself that she can't notice anything around her, and the wonder of the film is how it captures the loneliness at the heart of that egotism. She wants Buddy cause she thinks he's the only one she's ever been able to speak with, and his constant aloofness only further fuels her delusions. Of course the delusion has to break and she turns to Matt, who granted is the most contrived thing here, but their reconciliation scene is handled as beautifully as could be, even if it doesn't quite make sense.

And as far as this hicktown milieu goes, I can't speak for Minnesota, but it certainly struck home for me in Ohio. It's in Mavis's character to overblow the smallness and hickness of her town. There's probably no Macy's there, but all you really need is a nearby interstate and you'll have 5 within 20 minutes in the midwest.

This is certainly a big step in Cody's writing and she seems to be becoming positively self-aware. She even undermines her pop culture mal-mots like "textual chemistry" by turning them into the cast-off drivel of young adult fiction. Reitman's still just effective, and just doesn't get in the way of things. I get the sense he spends all the film thinking about the credit sequence and allows the screenplay to fall as it may, for better or worse (and that's not meant as an insult).

[Roger Ryan]

Coming from the Midwest myself, I'll just add that I agree with Shrew that the supposed differences between Minneapolis and the "small town" that Mavis comes from is largely generated in her own mind and I believe the film intends for the audience to recognize that. There really is no romantic big city to escape to for any of the characters here; they are either happy in their own skin and place in the world or they're not. All the same, I believe the film does critique a very real phenomenon that, within the last 40 years, the overgrowth of big box stores / fast food franchises/ strip malls has practically obliterated regional diversity.

[ShellOilJunior]

I thought it was a good film. Although Theron plays a mess of a character it wasn't hard to sit through the film by any means. I do enjoy Cody's wry sense of humor. I know some despise her but at least she's different than the typical screenwriter. Though, I must admit

Spoiler

the baby naming ceremony outburst didn't work for me. Up until that point the film offered me bits and pieces of Theron's character then all of a sudden it all came out.

[Andre Jurieu]

I agree with Andre that this is terribly uncomfortable to watch, but that's kind of the point.

I hope it's clear that I also thought the constant discomfort was totally an intentional and effective choice by the filmmakers. As uncomfortable as it was to watch, it's certainly a deliberate choice to accomplish what they believe to be necessary.

...this film contains an enormous 3rd act switcheroo which completely reframes everything that goes before it...

Spoiler

When we find out near the end Mavis miscarried Buddy's child (its important that the baby was WANTED and not aborted), this SHOULD create an entire 180 degree perspective on Buddy's previous behavior throughout the earlier part of the film. Only in RETROSPECT can one note a chilling impersonality in the way he regards this woman with whom he almost became the father he is now so enthused about being. When he sees Mavis, he treats her like an old pal, as it turns out presumably too much in emotional denial to confront their shared tragedy.

This is the icing on the cake for a world of small-town emotional denial (Mavis says she may be an alcoholic and her parents shrug it off). While Matt SEEMS like a truth-teller in the film, one would presume this being a small town he would have known about Mavis' pregnancy, and so could have figured out this had to do with her determination to 'win' Buddy back.

I agree that the 3rd act revelation

Spoiler

about the trauma Mavis has experienced

does significantly alter our perspective of her behaviour and actions. It also changes our perceptions of how she's been treated by Buddy throughout the film, but I'm not sure that's as meaningful a revelation.

First off, it's unclear whether or not anyone aside from

Spoiler

Mavis and Buddy

were aware of the incident. I would assume by the expression on the faces of Mavis' parents (at least her mother's expression, from what I remember of the film) that they might have known. I would also think that Buddy's wife, Beth, would have some awareness of the incident, but based on the scant information provided within the film, I really think that she would have only been made aware through her relationship with Buddy afterwards, and his willingness to share the information with her over the course of their relationship (though that still makes the invitation to the party even more strange). Based on Beth's facial expression during the revelation, I'm inclined to believe that she may also have been unaware. Honestly, I didn't get the sense that Matt had any knowledge of such occurrences and depending on the timeline of events, it's quite reasonable that very few people knew of the incident

Spoiler

(this has happened to a few friends of mine and it's either come as a surprise when I hear about it afterwards months or years later, or any knowledge of these things has been quite limited).

I'm also not sure these events and admissions are really a case of exposing the emotional denial that occurs specifically in small-towns. Realistically, this kind of repression and denial could happen anywhere, whatever the size of the community. It's not as if Mavis & her high school friend/classmates would have dealt with it much differently if all these events had occurred in an urban metropolis like Miami, Seattle, or Philadelphia. I'm unclear as to how treatment would have been much different in a major city, other than the people involved having greater access to methods of coping. Unfortunately, having greater access doesn't necessarily mean that any of them will use the resources that are easily accessible. Whether immersed in a large urban metropolis or stranded in a somewhat isolated community, it's a typical reaction for those experiencing these types of traumas to simply deal with it (perhaps poorly) on a personal level and eventually move on with your life after the scars heal (again, perhaps poorly). Perhaps my own version of city-life isn't typical, but everyone's personal trauma and hardships aren't really dealt with in a more transparent and obvious fashion within my city. If they were, urban life would be as irritating and insufferable as reality TV.

It's true that the admission from Mavis does somewhat alter our perceptions of Buddy's interactions with Mavis. The problem is that Buddy's reactions and interaction with Mavis are also somewhat understandable after this much time has passed after the incident. As personal as the experience must have been at that point in their lives, time has now passed, and he's moved forward in his life and she's (again somewhat understandably) stagnated. You can't really expect someone to revert to that state of being and be flooded by all those same emotions simply because he's reminded of those events. Realistically, Mavis is a woman he hasn't seen in some time and he has no idea that she hasn't healed from those tragic events. It's also a bit presumptuous to declare that he's in emotional denial, considering he might have spent a great deal of time confronting his emotions and finally made his peace with the tragedy.

However, this reminds me of one of my other pet-peeves with Diablo Cody's scripts - her need to suddenly reveal a main male character to be cruel and inconsiderate, particularly towards her female protagonist during the conclusion of the film. This tendency irked me previously in Juno, when Jason Bateman's character

Spoiler

suddenly decides to leave his wife because he's being suffocated and inexplicably hopes Juno will comprehend his rather abrupt decision.

Similarly, towards the end of Young Adult, for some unknown reason, Cody has to twist the circumstances in some strange way in order to depict Buddy as being some kind of insensitive, self-involved, callous, mildly-ignorant jerk. It's a tendency that seems unnecessary, especially in this case, where a great deal of time has passed since the tragedy and Buddy is not provided the same sympathy as Mavis. Buddy isn't allowed to suffer quietly and perhaps reflect occasionally on how his life might have been different. No, instead, he's the compassion-less prick who has heedlessly discarded his memories of the event entirely, and is therefore unworthy of any further exploration or explanation of his actions. He just gets to cluelessly arrive in time for a quick punchline after we learn of Mavis' personal tragedy. In fact, the more I ponder male characters such as Buddy and Juno's Mark Loring, the more it becomes apparent that Cody often thoughtlessly discards her male characters or merely avoids exploring their motivations.

... but I read the film as presenting her as a PRODUCT of an environment that trades on a surface of placid amiability which comes at the price of refusal to confront life's often-tragic realities.

Again, this placid amiability seems to be something that occurs frequently in our society. I'm not sure this is any different in the city, or suburb, or big-town, or small-town.

There are several 'truths' presented in this film that I think are intended to be false:

Spoiler

That Mavis is crazy to be set off the deep edge by the birth announcement
- Her behavior is crazy insofar she herself seems unaware of her true motivations BUT the actual source of the emotional pain is not invalid. When she gets the picture of the baby, it is FORCING her to re-experience old demons she had bottled up about her and Buddy's own lost child and the revelation she cannot have children ...

Based on what she reveals at the party, I doubt there are very many viewers who would think Mavis' behaviour is crazy. Realistically, I think most people would have a greater understanding of her actions once she provides greater history and context for her recent behaviour. I'd think most viewers would readily accept that the actual source of her emotional pain is quite valid and have a greater understanding of how the e-vite triggered these events.

[D_B]

Andre Jurieu: You make many reasonable points, but while I don't think they quite succeeded in pulling it off, I think the INTENT of the film is to indict not just Mavis but the entire society which she is a product of.

Looking back, I see see the most important moment of the entire film as being when Mavis' parents shrug off her declaration that she thinks she's

Spoiler

an alcoholic

. You CAN read that denial as a 'key' by which to read the entire film - as ultimately being about the insidious nature of refusing to face up to disruptive truths (perhaps we are an America of 'young adults").

If you read the film as being about denial, it would follow that

Spoiler

everybody in Mavis' town knew about her pregnancy and miscarriage, but forgot it or swept it under the rug. Now in the PERSONAL experiences of you or many others, this might not ring true, but at least as I read this as being Diablo Cody's intent. While I think thematically the film aspires to be a condemnation of the American psyche as a whole, it serves a purpose to have the main action take place in a smallish town because its more likely 'everybody' would know about a homecoming queen being 'knocked up' by her homecoming king boyfriend.

(BTW, we DO know for a fact that Buddy's mother knew about the pregnancy - I'm not clear but I think Mavis said she had gone to live with Buddy's family).

At least for me, this film invites a lot of extrapolation...I presume Mavis 1st marriage broke up because she could not have children. I presume her slovenly housekeeping and shabby treatment of her dog (not to mention her drinking) is a reflection of her unresolved anger about losing the baby and not being able to have any more.

This film calls for a lot of suspension of disbelief though - especially that Mavis - who does not seem to live THAT far away, has never returned home and seen any of these people in 20 years - but that IS how it is played when she rolls into town and mixes with the 'locals' - so we just have o accept it.

To sum up, having recently watched a bunch of graduate film school shorts, it was noteworthy how so many young people seem to be terrified of seeming 'uncool' by including scenes that are too 'melodramatic' or confrontational. I would say ultimately Young Adult suffers because Reitman is timid in how he stages some key moments and therefore fails to make some major points more clear. Most people are coming away from this film seeing it as a dark, not-very-funny comedy about a clueless narcissist trying to ruin the happiness of a bunch of nice folks - but for me there is more to it than that.

A few other reflections:

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of Mavis' wine-soaked shirt

Spoiler

representing her bloody miscarriage. Miscarriage is sure an issue that does not get a lot of attention in the 'arts' - it's a good example of something society has a hard time addressing in a public way.

At some point I WOULD like to see this film again with the final 'revelation' in mind.