Juno

A quirky comedy set in the off-beat world of upper Midwestern teenagers – but it has more plot then Napoleon Dynamite.

Sixteen year old Juno gets pregnant and, after considering an abortion, decides to carry the baby to term and give the baby up for adoption. The high-energy, wise-cracking teenager spouts allusions and one-liners that flow more naturally from the pen of a twenty-something scriptwriter than from the mouth of a 16 year old punk rocker, but actress Ellen Page carries it well, giving the film wit and intelligence, as well as an airy freshness.

Two interesting points in the film:

First, Juno’s experience at a women’s clinic suggests that the rising generation wants to re-open the question that has been closed by nearly all but a shrinking religious minority – When is a fetus a human life? The film never asks the question directly, but Juno’s dilemma and resulting choice gives us hope that she (and others of her generation if she is representative) are more willing to view an unborn child as a person rather than a mere coagulation of cells.

Second (and this question is asked far more openly) Juno practically begs for assurance that a relationship can “last forever.” Apparently exhausted by the tickle down effects from two generations of disposable relationships, Juno speaks for her tribe in her longing for permanence. Unfortunately, the film offers only a superficial answer.

The movie sports a PG-13 rating, and for those who may be content-sensitive, the dialogue is well-laced with casual cursing and sexual frankness. That said, I think the film is worth watching. If, as I said earlier, the character Juno is representative and the rising generation is asking serious questions about the sanctity of life and marriage, then we bear a responsibility to be prepared to offer answers that are both deeply rooted in Truth and savvy to the way they receive and process information.

Introduction

While serving the Soviet Army during WWII, Russian author Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote a personal letter to a friend in which he criticized Stalin’s war strategy and referred to him as “the whiskered one.” For that offense Solzhenitsyn spent eight years in the Gulag.


That experience, together with his subsequent exile, forms the core of his work. In 1970 he won the Noble Prize for literature "for the ethical force with which he has pursued the indispensable traditions of Russian literature."

When Solzhenitsyn died last August (‘08) I was reminded of his infamous Harvard address, the first – and last – invitation he received to speak at the school. In rereading it, I was shaken by the near prescience of his leveling criticisms.

That’s not to say that he forecast events like a modern-day Nostradamus. Rather, the view from here, some 30 years later, suggests that the cultural trends that Solzhenitsyn analyzed in 1978 have, in many ways, developed along the lines he traced in this speech. He was wrong on some of the details: He didn’t anticipate the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example. Perhaps Reagan and Thatcher were examples of the kind of trend-changing leaders that Solzhenitsyn had hoped would emerge from that Harvard graduating class.

That blind-spot notwithstanding (and who can criticize such a blind-spot; in 1978 no one foresaw the Soviet collapse), Solzhenitsyn’s speech echoes back to us with a growing tag line: “I told you so.”

On this label, I will post sections of Solzhenitsyn’s speech along with my own limited commentary. Feel free to add your own, for the intention is to solicit discussion of Solzhenitsyn’s themes and their implications. Perhaps his echoing voice will ripple out into our social consciousness and inspire the personal courage and fortitude that he had hoped to stir in those Harvard graduates.

You can find a transcript of Solzhenitsyn's Harvard adress here:

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/solzhenitsyn/harvard1978.html

About the Title

Philip K. Dick wrote science-fiction. One of his most well-known novels, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, inspired the cult classic film Blade Runner. Dick challenged traditional ontological assumptions, using androids as a foil for exploring what it means to be human.

The Dick Van Dyke Show featured Rob and Laura Petrie, a young couple living in the New Rochelle suburb of New York. Rob (Van Dyke) was a comedy writer with wacky co-writers as his best friends. Laura (Mary Tyler Moore) was the quintessential housewife. The show featured one of the first iterations of the affluent, suburbanite "starter-family" format that would become a staple for the contemporary sitcom.


Elements in these divergent stories come together, I think, to describe the particular tension in the rising generation, namely ontological confusion (questions concerning origins, history and destiny) and the stabilty of traditional structures.

On the one hand, twentysomethings are skeptical about their parents' basic assumptions about reality and self; they are almost haunted by the questions "Who am I?" "Where did I come from?" "Where am I going?" and "What do I do on my way there?" and their parents' answers don't prove satisfying. As a result, they seek a different lifestyle, usually urban and experimental.

On the other hand, ask most of these same twentysomethings where they hope to be in 10-15 years and they seem to want a stable family (a life-partner and one or two children) and the kind of personal peace and affluence that characterizes their own upbringing. In other words, they are both skeptical of and desirous for those structures that shaped them.

They navigate a tension between Philip K. Dick and The Dick Van Dyke Show.

Remains of the Day

A friend first mentioned Kazou Ishiguro to me about a year ago but it was only recently (after several more recommendations) that I picked him up. He wites beautifully and commands masterful control over his narrative. To quote a friend, "Even when absolutely nothing's happening in the story, it's still a pleasure to read."

Remains of the Day is told in the voice of a proper English butler on a "motoring holiday." In journal format he reflects on his profession and the qualities that make a great gentleman's gentleman. As he does, he shows us the predicament of his own psyche, a predicament of which even he is unaware.

Ishiguro delights in humanity and colors his characters with rich complexity. His themes (in what I've read of him) explore the tragedy of humans caught up in structures that threaten to dehumanize them. Remains of the Day criticizes the subtle caste system in British society.

A good read, engaging and thought provoking.