Young Adult (Jason Reitman, 2011)

[MoonlitKnight]

I think you definitely need to look at this film more as a character study than an actual conventional story. And I suppose how much you like it then depends on how much you relate to Mavis. As a creative/non-conformist/unlucky-in-love person myself, I definitely identified with her inability to find happiness in the mundaneness/banality of everyday life, with which most people seem perfectly content. How could one be so content to live nearly the exact same life as nearly everybody else? There's gotta be something more out there. :-s That said, this is nonetheless probably Reitman the Younger's least impressive film to date.

[D_B]

MoonlitKnight

Well, I would say 'character studies' are more conventional than broad sociological critiques, but hey, I am just reading the film in a particular way and am trying to make a case for what I'm seeing and why.

Personally, I don't relate to Mavis much at all per se, but I DO relate to what I perceive to be many of Cody's observations and criticisms of American society.

As for Reitman's other films - have not seen "Smoking", think Juno is his and Cody's most successful film to date, but think "Up in the Air" ended with a huge cop out which does not leave me well disposed to it at all.

[domino harvey]

By an obscene margin this is the best film and performance of the year (the two are so interconnected that I can't conceive of them apart). Charlize Theron's Mavis Gary is alive in such a vibrant and confrontational fashion that it transcends the base needs of the plot she's sewn into-- she's not merely recognizable or relatable, she's known. This is a rough thread to read, as it does seem like most of the posters here have followed the same tack as the movie reviewers at-large by seeing the film as a damnation of the Theron character rather than an unapologetic straight examination of her strengths and flaws and how they manifest and effect her life for better or (more often) worse. I can imagine the frustration people must feel if they're seeing the film through the wrong lens (ie "Pls jdge ths hrble btch"), but the picture is no simplistic denouncement or act of superiority. Rather, Young Adult is to my eyes one of the greatest and most astutely observed character studies in all of cinema, one so strongly expressed that people bring their own biases to the film and the negative reactions appear to reflect the viewer more than the film (though no doubt the same could be said for some of the positive reactions as well). Comments that people like the Theron character "deserve" to be disdained/reviled/hated are nauseating and beneath this forum's usual decorum, but also show the impasse a film of this power can create in an audience.

[mfunk9786]

Yes! Excellent review, Domino.

[gcgiles1dollarbin]

I heard Joe Morgenstern describe Young Adult as “brave” in a conversation with other critics; by “brave,” I’m assuming he meant that the film didn’t capitulate to convention, particularly at the end. Critics are so saturated with patly resolved conflicts and evenly rounded story arcs in movies, it’s no wonder they become dazzled by a film that refuses a cliché here and there. In the case of Reitman’s film, this refusal, it would seem, endows it with more authenticity or verisimilitude. But having never considered the American style of Method acting realistic—even as I concede that it is most properly connected to the tradition of realism—I’m more likely to award the title of authenticity to films like Barbara Loden’s Wanda, in which the histrionics are so broken down and anti-cathartic, it’s almost frighteningly lifelike. I only bring this up because what Morgenstern considers brave, I believe, is the attempt to verge on more common human experience by way of omitting trite transformations of character; but I suspect if this film really dispensed with convention—and really attempted to reflect quotidian experience—he would be either bored silly or made extremely uncomfortable. (I, on the other hand, would probably be delighted, but that’s my perverse pleasure.) The problem with Morgenstern’s assertion, for me, lies with the highly conventional middle stretch that the ending and beginning work against: Patton’s naively wise one-man chorus of disapproval, for example, or the climactic party gathering that finally exposes Theron’s character before a crowd; these are extremely familiar elements of narrative film, particularly here in the U.S. I have no problem with convention—most of my favorite American films have been made in that highly formal and formulaic period before the advent of Strasberg. But if the basis of your defense is that YA bucks convention or is somehow warts-and-all or that it potentially reflects an actual experience—I think this is overstating its uniqueness.

In response to Domino’s review, I have a couple questions: 1) what is meant by “known” (the italics suggest a mystification that goes beyond merely having known a person like Mavis Gary) and 2) are there films toward which it is more or less difficult to suppress personal bias as a viewer?

[karmajuice]

Honestly, it's mostly the supporting cast that bothers me. Everything felt so insincere, like the glaring contrivance of Oswalt's cripple character. The writing throughout just felt too pat and easy. Frankly, the audacity of the Theron character is the film's only saving grace. As a character study, focusing on that character, it has something going for it, but the supporting cast is just too Stock Supporting Cast. A character study thrives off of how a character plays off of the people they're surrounded by, and this film falls flat in that regard. So it's a far cry from a great character study, much less the greatest, but I agree on one count: Theron's performance is bold and the approach to her character is risky. I'm not sure condescension is part of the equation, though I feel that argument can be made. Most of the humor early in the film is pure mockery of her character, and that feels at odds with the earnest (albeit hamfisted) approach adopted in the latter half.

[Brian C]

Comments that people like the Theron character "deserve" to be disdained/reviled/hated are nauseating and beneath this forum's usual decorum, but also show the impasse a film of this power can create in an audience.

Not sure if this is pointed at me or not, but I hope that my comments, taken as a whole, demonstrate that I'm angry at the movie for inventing a character in order to pick on her, and that I took no delight in seeing her knocked down a few pegs.

(though no doubt the same could be said for some of the positive reactions as well)

Ouch! Watch where you're throwing those bones.

[Shrew]

wrote:
Comments that people like the Theron character "deserve" to be disdained/reviled/hated are nauseating and beneath this forum's usual decorum, but also show the impasse a film of this power can create in an audience.

Not sure if this is pointed at me or not, but I hope that my comments, taken as a whole, demonstrate that I'm angry at the movie for inventing a character in order to pick on her, and that I took no delight in seeing her knocked down a few pegs.

Woah. I think Domino's going a little over the top in implying a threat to the forum's moral fiber, but I think his point, as well as one made by me and Andre Jurieu is that the film goes out of its way to make sure that it and the viewer do not take pleasure in seeing Mavis picked on. She's a complicated character and one that may well not be a good human being, but the film isn't trading in hateful schadenfreude. She's not invented to be humiliated, but to explore the depth and emotional turmoil that a usually easy target (High School Bitch) is capable of. I think the point is that you're supposed to feel bad about her humiliation instead of viewing it as vindication.

[mfunk9786]

There is so much that makes Mavis who she is that we're given a glimpse of, I just don't know how you can take away from the film that we're given a one-dimensional character to hate for 90 minutes and go home. There is so much more here.

[Brian C]

There is so much that makes Mavis who she is that we're given a glimpse of, I just don't know how you can take away from the film that we're given a one-dimensional character to hate for 90 minutes and go home.

Because her self-absorption is so utterly all-encompassing, and the movie goes out of its way to point this out repeatedly, to the point that I just can't see how the movie isn't actively rooting against her. So, I guess I think it's one-dimensional because that's her only dimension.

[rs98762001]

But if the basis of your defense is that YA bucks convention or is somehow warts-and-all or that it potentially reflects an actual experience—I think this is overstating its uniqueness.

Hear, hear. The levels of praise for this mediocrity on this particular page has drifted into the arena of the Armond-esque.

[Roger Ryan]

For me, Mavis is a classic anti-hero. I disagree with her opinions and actions, but I can't help but identify that some of her flaws reside in me as well. This is the same response generated by Alex in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or Bobby Dupea in FIVE EASY PIECES. While popular forty years ago, the true anti-hero is a rarity these days. The convention is for film protagonists to be flawed in believable ways while they struggle to do the right thing...or for an antagonist to struggle doing what he knows to be the wrong thing. Mavis is a protagonist who is delusional enough to believe the wrong thing is the right thing to do and will go to great lengths to avoid confronting the truth.

YOUNG ADULT is all about identity and perception, but without understanding. Not just Mavis, but most of the film's characters appear to judge their self-worth based on where they live, what jobs they hold, what hobbies they have, what tragedies they've endured and how they treat their family and friends. Often their motivations are suspect. The pervading sense of loneliness that seems to touch almost everyone here might be the most unconventional aspect of the film.

[Andre Jurieu]

Because her self-absorption is so utterly all-encompassing, and the movie goes out of its way to point this out repeatedly, to the point that I just can't see how the movie isn't actively rooting against her. So, I guess I think it's one-dimensional because that's her only dimension.

It's certainly a (and perhaps "the") defining quality of the character, but I think it's also quite apparent that the filmmakers are not only attempting to show the level of her self-absorption, but also making a concerted effort to expose and explore the various reasons behind this defining dimension. Realistically, we're dealing with a woman whose development has stagnated or receded based upon various traumas that have occurred during key stages of her development. I thought it was readily apparent that the filmmakers have some sympathy/empathy for her plight, however obviously misguided her motivations appear, and that they allow the audience to view her through a neutral perspective despite her overly adolescent actions.

[domino harvey]

One of the deleted scenes on the Blu features a line worth stealing from Theron about babies:

Spoiler

"It's eight pounds two ounces... they measure babies like marijuana"

[puxzkkx]

I liked this, and I liked Theron, but:

But if the basis of your defense is that YA bucks convention or is somehow warts-and-all or that it potentially reflects an actual experience—I think this is overstating its uniqueness.

Hear, hear. The levels of praise for this mediocrity on this particular page has drifted into the arena of the Armond-esque.

I agree. That being said, Theron's reading of "I have depression" is probably my favourite thing of the year.

[Lemmy Caution]

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.

I'd assume that within say a 30 minute drive of Minnetonka or Burnsville -- suburban Macy's locations -- you can easily find a pleasant little podunk town. And certainly, Mavis having grown up there would know where the nearest decent shopping mall is.

Otherwise, I have no idea why you're picking on Neptune, New Jersey.

[Alan Smithee]

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.

I've lived in a tiny hick burg that had maybe a few thousand people and a mid size city with a Macys and lemme tell ya, there isn't much of a difference.

[Roger Ryan]

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.

I've lived in a tiny hick burg that had maybe a few thousand people and a mid size city with a Macys and lemme tell ya, there isn't much of a difference.

...which one of the points YOUNG ADULT is making, I believe.

[lacritfan]

I'm not as polarized on the film as some of you. It seems in movies and TV the arrogant, popular girl in high school 20 years later is now happy/successful and still a bitch, and usually there as the foil for the main "loser" character so it was interesting that she was the main character here, and not happy/successful. It seemed a pretty straight forward grass-is-always-greener story to me. Despite the fact Mavis hates her life Matt's sister envies it, seeing only the superficial. And I think most can assume if Mavis

Spoiler

hadn't miscarried and stayed in town with Buddy and had kids she'd still be miserable, probably blaming Buddy for ruining her life since she never had a chance to go to the big city and try and be famous.

It seems the only truly happy person in town (Buddy, his wife, the parents all just seemed content to me) is "happy wheelchair guy" who Mavis and Matt resent, not realizing that his making the best of his situation is that grand achievement in life they have both failed at.
On a side note I can see why Patton Oswald didn't get nominated but by the same token I can't see how Jonah Hill did.

[tarpilot]

On a side note I can see why Patton Oswald didn't get nominated but by the same token I can't see how Jonah Hill did.

I think it's simply a case of the Academy being hot on one film and cool on another. For reasons I'm still unable to suss out, they went gaga over Moneyball and lobbed nominations at it wherever possible; Young Adult goes to different, darker, far more uncomfortable places than the film that "made" Diablo Cody, and as such stood little chance in an awards season more susceptible to pap than any in recent memory, which is saying something (and you might say extremely loudly...)

[HistoryProf]

Honestly, it's mostly the supporting cast that bothers me. Everything felt so insincere, like the glaring contrivance of Oswalt's cripple character. The writing throughout just felt too pat and easy. Frankly, the audacity of the Theron character is the film's only saving grace. As a character study, focusing on that character, it has something going for it, but the supporting cast is just too Stock Supporting Cast. A character study thrives off of how a character plays off of the people they're surrounded by, and this film falls flat in that regard. So it's a far cry from a great character study, much less the greatest, but I agree on one count: Theron's performance is bold and the approach to her character is risky. I'm not sure condescension is part of the equation, though I feel that argument can be made. Most of the humor early in the film is pure mockery of her character, and that feels at odds with the earnest (albeit hamfisted) approach adopted in the latter half.

watched this tonight and I have to agree with this sentiment, particularly with respect to the supporting cast. Clearly the big reveal at the baby naming party completely changes everything that's come before it, and makes Mavis an almost sympathetic character to me - but while Theron's performance is indeed stunning, and I think its a tremendous character study of a severely damaged human being, the supporting cast does all of this great work a tremendous disservice. it felt to me like Reitman and Cody want to be the Coens and Alexander Payne yet made a film that's not the least bit "quirky" in any way. The hotel clerk, her parents, the Macy's lady....they all detract from the central conceit of the film, and seem like cast offs from the aforementioned film makers tossed in to soften the blows. They simply try to hard to force humor where it doesn't belong, and rob us of the chance to really get a glimpse into a very broken woman. Mavis is a tragedy....and when we find out why it all makes sense, and we see her break down when she turns to Matt. But like anyone who reaches that bottom, we also see her struggle to climb out of the hole and re mortar the walls. again, a quirky character appears to make that neat and tidy - which it never is.

There's real greatness here, and I think its a shame that Cody is so in love with her own cleverness that she can't escape these little asides and couldn't fully immerse the film in Mavis's dysfunction. I feel like it should have been darker given how raw Theron's performance is...but they seemed to hedge their bets with the attempts at lightening certain scenes. I don't know....something about kid gloves here? I agree with Domino to some degree...but feel that in the end they approached the precipice, but were too afraid of what they glimpsed and backed off.

[StevenS]

As Andre Jurieu says above, last act does feel somewhat clunky and awkwardly put away. Everything up to the scene at the birthday party works wonderfully well and there was a few braver steps that Reitman could've taken with Diablo - although perhaps the character was damaged enough as it is. The character arc doesn't follow a traditional curve leaving you to wonder by the end what has really changed for Mavis.

I was completely surprised at how much I enjoyed this, thoroughly impressed by Theron's performance which in hindsight was the best female lead I'd seen all year.

[flyonthewall2983]

I had a few genuine laugh-out-loud moments, but I think my favorite is...

Spoiler

When Buddy reveals the birthday gift. It's something out of a sitcom, how he magically wasn't able to hear what was going on outside because his garage door was shut.

[therewillbeblus]

This movie only gets better with age. I agree with posters who propose that Mavis forces a confrontation between the viewer and themselves as well as social relationships that were less than comfortable from our pasts. Often when we are most repelled by human behavior, it's because we notice a trait that we don't want to recognize in ourselves. Now, I don't identify with Mavis whatsoever on the surface, but since everyone has been blind or narcissistic or coped with thoughts of superiority, there are plenty of opportunities to engage with this character, just ones we don't want to take. Theron embodies a tragic person who simultaneously earns our sympathy as a human being while not necessarily earning all of our respect beyond that.

Narcissistic comedy is incredible when exaggerated and this hits right on the money of truth, two birds with one stone. I don't agree with Cody that people don't change, but I do agree that they don't change in the ways movies make them out to, and I applaud her for sending us and Theron on a one-way ticket to hitting bottom. What does it say about Cody that she made this film while believing that? Is this a therapeutic exercise for her, or an imagining of that girl-as-woman who she couldn't stand in high school? This film is not only funny, tragic, and realistic, but it hits on a deeper authenticity of how we live in our fantasies, allowing expectations born in our minds to serve our own self-interest and drown the pain, coping with life in a protective way that is borderline healthy or deteriorating depending how far we go with them. There is a glimpse of most people within Theron whether we want to admit it or not, and that's - as domino said - a combination of strengths and weaknesses that form a complicated person. She's not begging to be liked (well, she is, the movie isn't), but finding empathy for a person like this is a challenge, impressive, and incredibly gratifying. knives once said something to me regarding Cartesius in that by finding empathy for even Descartes, despite having many layered problems with him, Rossellini achieved something extraordinary. Cody, Reitman, Theron et al. have fleshed out a character so well that they’ve done something similar without confusing empathy for alliance, admiration, or likeability.

The nostalgia piece of being removed from formative years and holding onto our versions of truth diluted over time is a journey that begets the kind of stagnation and anti-growth directly related to those memory sources, regardless of growth outside of them, and this is a fair point too that strikes an Achilles' heel in many. Then there are all the differences between us and her that we sure are identifying in spades, anxiously to protect our own psyches. This whole process of engagement reveals a lot to us about ourselves in addition to being simply hilarious and relatable from an observational standpoint sans direct participation, which allows the film to breathe and the subliminal angles to find the vein. I also really like the comparison to Five Easy Pieces as an inverse of that film in some ways, which I hadn’t through about until this watch (and makes me wonder how gender plays into the cut and dry judgments here vs that film). At the end all I can think of is who hasn't desperately wanted to be loved, validated, even liked, and how can you stand so intensely against a character who struggles with that, no matter how triggering their behavior may be on the outside. The conversation with the sister at the end just when she's entering the contemplation stage of change could have happened in her mind - and certainly would have on the car ride home - sending her right back to the safety of her psychological defenses. I’m sure this alienated some viewers but I think it’s brilliantly accurate in shattering the myth of absolute epiphanies toward static change in these movies and outside of them, as well as being supremely compassionate to her character’s capacity for self-regulation and resilience.