...you folks are Slate readers so you have to be smart. You DO understand that Juno is a work of FICTION right? "Fiction," as in not real. Please stop complaining about how it's not realistic. A fictional movie is not required to be realistic. It's like complaining that David Copperfield and Chris Angel don't do real magic. If you want a realistic movie go see a documentary then you can complain til you're blue in the face that it's not realistic. 3

Imagine a movie where a man shoots a gun and an elephant comes out. Sounds unrealistic right? Well, no matter, because realism is immaterial to a movie's quality, right? Wrong. I think the issue is the degree of realism which one can reasonably expect from a film whose pretense is "How a young girl made it through her pregnancy." To a certain extent, drama and comedy play off our understanding of what is typical and what is not. When a film strays into the territory of "fiercely atypical," a filmgoer is justified in asking herself, "Why did that just happen?" If it can be explained away by typecasting a movie--this is magical realism, or this movie is about that .000000001% of the population--then perhaps the filmgoer will be placated. If it feels inconsistent with a film's tone, or appears to be laziness on the part the scriptwriter, a filmgoer could justifiably be angry.

The issue of realism in Juno is relevant because the film presents itself in realistic, dramatic tones, despite heavy comedic leanings. But I think even the most charitable viewer would be hard-pressed to find someone quite as quick-to-the-punch as Juno, and that is why many find her character implausible.

(For the record, however, the realism of the movie didn't bother me. It's not that I don't find Juno realistic; rather, I just didn't think it was funny.)

A man shooting an elephant out of a gun is funny! Or, it could be, if it were that kind of movie, and the elephant had a goofy expression on his face, but the man firing the gun isn't surprised at all, or...

Anyway, my point is, if it's THAT KIND OF MOVIE, then it could work. Then realism doesn't matter. But JUNO is a movie striving to be authentic. It isn't HEATHERS, which is of course not realistic, but is a million times more authentic in what it has to say about being a high school aged girl (not to mention funnier and more interesting). So, you're right, who cares about realism? Maybe it doesn't really matter that there's no way Juno would know who Soupy Sales is. But it DOES matter that it doesn't say anything interesting or true.

Gee, I didnt know I had go to see a documentary if I want realism in a movie. See, I thought fictional movies can be entertaining AND realistic - especially if you are making a movie about teenage pregnancy. Just like Pretty Woman does not have an ounce of realism in it about what a whore's life would be like. I don't think many of them have Richard Gere like guys falling in love with them and showing up in a limo to take her away from it all. But - hey, that movie made a lot of money too. Yes, I understand there is escapism but a lot of young girls are going to see JUNO and unfortunately, a number of them will find themselves pregnant and think - I'll just have it - it was so fun and cool when it happened in Juno." And yes - many ignorant people think that way. (And you know what - one can express a differing opinion and not "whine.") .

See, to me a problem is that in Juno, if the movie reminds me of teenagers I know, I like it...if it doesn't, I don't...it's easier to suspend disbelief with obsessed early 20th century oil magnates and homicidal lunatics and Wookies.

You're right of course that fictional movies do not necessarily have to be realistic. However, there is such a thing as realism within the fictional created world of the movie.

It's the similar to the question "How many horns does a unicorn have?" A total realist might say "It's a meaningless question, because unicorns don't exist." However, a romantic can meaningfully assert that a unicorn has one horn because that is the truth in the fictional world of unicorns.

If Juno was clearly made as a romantic fantasy, I don't think anyone would be objecting to its unreality.

There is also the issue of creating idealized fantasies about things that are harmful and problematic in the real world. People talk about the idealization of slavery in Gone with the Wind, and the response "it's just a work of fiction" doesn't really meet the criticism. Maybe saying that Gone with the Wind is unrealistic is just another way of saying that slavery is a poor choice of a subject for idealistic fantasizing.

Although the paralell with teen pregnancy is not exactly analgous to slavery, it is a social problem that is intertwined with a great many harmful dynamics. Perhaps people are saying, similarly, that teen pregnancy is a poor topic to fictionalize in an idealistic, romantic way.

I had a similar argument about the word "fiction" regarding The DaVinci Code. In sum, the Code gets historical facts wrong. The response I got was that it was in the fiction section of the book store, so it had no obligation to get anything about history right.

I don't think this is a good way to appreciate a work of art. Saying "fiction" means "fake" doesn't give you any critical tools to discuss what's going on on the screen. Likewise, you're going to get derailed pretty fast if you take all everything you see in a documentary as "truth".

Probably the easiest way to approach a work of art is to discuss whether or not it succeeds or fails at what it's attempting to do. It's fair game to call a work of fiction, then, unrealistic if it sets out to tell a realistic story. It would be unfair to claim Juno was a bad movie because Ellen Page wasn't really pregnant.