What did you like last year?

Children of Men, Pan's Labyrinth, and The Queen were all better than The Departed, IMO. But I wasn't upset that Departed won last year, because Scorsese has been ripped off so many times.

So, prior to last night, of the five best picture nominees, I had seen Juno, Atonement, and No Country for Old Men (just the night before). I saw all of these movies in the past two weeks. I can't comment on Michael Clayton and There Will Be Blood, but I differ with your opinions to some degree.

My wife and I thought Juno wasn't terrible, but we didn't really like it that much-- it was mildly entertaining and I found the film's message as I interpreted it to be somewhat bad (for lack of a better word).

NCFOM was entertaining, but in my mind there was nothing too intriguing about it-- and I even thought the ending was easy to interpret and fit with the overall message of the movie (which I also don't care for). It seems that critics were won over by the anti-Hollywood ending (there's no one who can protect you from the world and its craziness and bad occurences) wins scenario here, that really did not seem that risky, given that the film did not have the traditional Hollywood feel to start with. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed watching it, but felt like it ended up being empty calories: lower case cinema.

Atonement, on the other hand, I enjoyed the most-- I knew the least about it though before I watched it. It wasn't a great movie, but I liked it the most and thought it was good among the three best picture nominees I saw this year.
I thought that the first part defied traditional period movie occurences, and that caught me off-guard in a pleasant way. You are right that the WWII stuff kind of seems like filler-- but I liked how the ending made those segments seem more important and relevant. I've thought more about the conclusion of Atonement than I have the other movies, and for this reason, I would deem it Cinema (pretty pretentious heh? Self-mocking here, if not apparent).

I was surprised to find out that No Country was considered a nontraditional film, but that might just reflect the company I keep. (And my lack of knowledge about what's considered Serious Cinema.)

I was won over by NCFOM originally by the first 85% of the film -- it was bar none one of the tautest films I have ever seen, equal to the best of Hitchcock. I'm thinking of the scene when Josh Brolin escapes from the dog, and both of the major motel sequences. Every shot, sound effect, and edit was perfect.

The latter 15% put me off at first, not because of the message, but because I thought it was inconsistent in tone with the rest of the film. But when I saw it for a second time a few months later, I noticed that Tommy Lee Jones's thread was more present than I had remembered it, and I was able to appreciate the ending much more, with knowledge of it in advance.

No, I don't think there was anything difficult to interpret about its themes, but I thought it was handled very well.

I liked Juno, but wasn't gaga over it. What was your interpretation of its "bad" message?

Atonement: I've made my thoughts plain, and you seem to be on the same page mostly, except that I was more upset about the WWII filler. I agree that the ending was good, but I give credit to Ian McEwan for the creativity -- the movie itself handled it poorly.

Michael Clayton: A good nuts-and-bolts movie.

There Will Be Blood: In some ways, There Will Be Blood is better than NCFOM. I need to see it a second time, for much of the same reasons as I wanted to NCFOM again -- that is, the radical change in tone of the last segment. It's certainly more open to interpretation than NCFOM (except for the scene in NCFOM where TLJ enters the crime scene), and grander in scope.

NCFOM is a non-traditional Oscar winner, in terms of the past 20 years or so, because it is dark, violent, and structured in a non-standard way. The closest comparison I can think of is Unforgiven, but even that had the kind of climactic ending that NCFOM lacked. If you go pre-80's, there are more non-traditional winners (Midnight Cowboy and The Godfather are two off the top of my head).

Forgot about Children of Men, that was better. I was just looking at the nominees.

I watched NCFOM yesterday before the Oscars and wasn't giving it my full attention. I was folding laundry at what turned out to have been a crucial series of scenes and when I got the end I realized I had no idea what had happened. D'oh. I need to rewatch it at some point and pay more attention.

My claim wasn't that the best film doesn't win, as that very very rarely happens, but that the film that wins doesn't usually deserve Best Picture, regardless of whether I thought it was the "best" of the year or not. Example: I think American Beauty deserved to win in 1999, but I liked Being John Malkovich more. But when I think of movies like Crash, Gladiator, and A Beautiful Mind winning Best Picture, it makes my head explode.

overall, i was satisfied with No Country and There Will Be Blood being the top dogs in nominations and wins. we've come a long way from the travesty of Gladiator winning best picture, at least.

still, nothing bowled me over this year, the way Pan's Labyrinth did last year, so there.

last night, i had my worst oscar pool total ever. i hate running an oscar pool that i always lose.

Bourne Ultimatum had the second most wins with 3. They were all technical awards, of course. Although I think NCFOM should have won the Sound Mixing award, because, as I said before, the sound in that film was perfect. RumorsDaily gets my disapproving look for not seeing NCFOM on the big screen. Slater would to, but he had extenuating circumstances.

Yeah, I deserve it, I know. My excuse is that the people I'm around in DC don't enjoy movies (what the hell?) and going by one's self is not always a great option considering a number of factors.

LA will not have this problem. I will be up to date next year, I swear.

But, yeah, if anyone hasn't watched it yet, don't watch it and think you can fold laundry and make yourself some lunch. It seems reasonably straightforward (in terms of attention requirements) for 75% then all of a sudden you had to be paying actual attention, not folding laundry attention. It tricked me like that. Don't let it trick you.

I don't know if I can remember a year when my favorite films were even nominated, let alone win. The fact that the Coen Bros. and NCFOM won all the big awards floors me. I loved that film (as well as There Will Be Blood). There are scenes in NCFOM that I could watch over and over. I find Tommy Lee Jones' end monologue to be pitch perfect. It resonated with me for days. Add to that the Coens have SUCKED the past 5 years and I see this win as a minor miracle. Usually this type of film gets nominated and then loses to something mainstream. Like Titanic over LA Confidential. Or whatever A Beautiful Mind (which was a thousand times worse than Gladiator which was also pretty bad) beating In The Bedroom. I think this is the best film to win since Unforgiven and Silence of the Lambs.

WHen the Oscars did the whole montage to the Best Picture winners, were you struck by how many great films won in the 70's and how it all went downhill from there? The French Connection,Godfather, The Sting, Godfather II, One Flew Over..., Rocky, Annie Hall, The Deer Hunter. Hell, even Kramer vs. Kramer was pretty damn good. Of course, then Ordinary People won, defeating Raging Bull. OP was so mediocre that it should have been directed by Ron Howard. Of the 80's I think only Amadeus deserved the win and of the 00's NCFOM stands head and tail above the rest.

Also, I know this is getting long, but how great is it that two of my favorite filmmakers win best director back to back years. Next year I hope Kubrick pulls out a win.

Hey, Raging Bull should've won in 1980, but I'll defend Ordinary People. It's pretty good.

It really wasn't though. There were good parts about it. The acting was great and I liked where the story started and how information unfolded. Oh, alright, the more I think about it the more I like it. But come on! Raging Bull!

Kubrick can't win you idiot. He died a few years ago.

I heard he was technically a co-directer on the soon to be released A.I. 2. Halley Joel Osment is back as a robot struggling with the pains of puberty... in the future!

nya, get out of my head. i had been super disappointed with the coens for a while (was intolerable cruelty directed by two OTHER guys named joel and ethan coen?), which is why i'm glad no country was a success, even if it's not even close to being my favorite coen movie.

Kubrick's dead! Oh my gosh. Well, then I hope Altman gets one next year. And hell, maybe one of my favorite actors, Peter Sellers, can win as well. They could do a movie together.

I'm banking on Welles' comeback. He's got another film in him, I'm sure.

i hope it's about fishsticks.

Sorry, a day passing without replying on a blog perhaps seems like an eternity.

Ok, so here's my take on Juno, and the missus agreed.
The most apparent message of the movie seemed to be along the lines of "it does not matter who your parents are as long as they love you. Love is the most important thing."

Well... Perhaps I can't comment on that so much since my parents are my biological parents, although it seems a little phony to suggest that things are that simple for people who were adopted. People who have adopted kids who I know have suggested to me that it isn't.

I see this theme as manifested best in one of the final scenes where Jennifer Garner's character is in the hospital looking at the babies, and Juno's mom-in-law is the person acting the most like a parent, who in fact is the surrogate parent for Juno. Does that make sense?

That being said, if one can accept the message as I describe it to be Juno's theme, then it does become somewhat problematic, because it essentially is saying:
go ahead! Have a baby! It's no big deal! Someone will take care of it! Just make sure it is someone who really wants to love that baby.

Maybe Alicia and I have stronger feelings about this since we have a young baby, so I don't know if there is a viewer divide in that sense.

More importantly though, Juno did not make me laugh. For this reason, it's harder to forgive a movie for its flaws.

Once again to be fair though, I didn't hate Juno. It was as I said, just mildly entertaining-- and because it was nominated for best picture, I think it's up for more scrutiny. It is refreshing though to have a comedy nominated for best picture (although I guess Juno is more like a dramedy).

Upon a recent re-watch of the 40 year old Virgin-- I must say, Steve Carrell deserved the academy award for that performance. Awesome and believable.

THAT was the message you got out of Juno?! I hope the Internet isn't full of angry adoptive kids and parents spoiling for a flame war. Or maybe I hope it IS.

Lorelei, sorry but since I don't know you, I can't detect sarcasm from real meaning.

But I sense that you thought there was a
different message to Juno. I'm all ears.
What do you think it was? Maybe I was
missing something.

The point of my comment was to express amazement that you seem to think biological relation makes someone better equipped to parent than an adoptive parent. Or at least that adoptive parents must be at a disadvantage. Not only is it easy to find examples to the contrary, but I thought the movie did a pretty good job of BEING an example to the contrary. I'm not adopted, I just find it obvious that adoptive parents are not necessarily worse than the conventional kind.

I am sure that you can't imagine giving up your child, which is good. However, I am also sure that he or she (sorry, don't remember which) did not come out with an instruction manual, which means you're learning on the job, just as the Jennifer Garner character would have to.

However, I am happy to agree that the movie had flaws.

Maybe *your* babies won't come out with an instruction manual, but I guarantee you that mine will come out with both a manual *and* a properly sized hex wrench.

My baby will be named "Sven," and can be purchased at your local Ikea for $29.99.

But actually, I wanted to pipe up and say that any message I took from Juno had little to do with babies and adoption, and more with reversing traditional notions of maturity and responsibility.

I think the message of Juno was that is you can win an Oscar for writing an okay movie as long as the media and your publicist flog this idea that you were a "stripper" even though you only stripped on a sort of hipster ironic lark.

She wasn't a stripper? What's her deal?

No, she was a stripper, for about a year. I think Anthony is mocking her sincerity in being a stripper, which is sort of silly.

I am mocking the fact that anytime you read about the movie there was always a paragraph about how she was a stripper. It was a good story that sold her well. But there was rarely a mention that she was a girl with a popular blog, who worked at a law firm, then decided on a lark to become a stripper and wrote a blog about that. She was a product. A story that was sold and packaged well by her people and the movie. I think she is quite talented. Apparently her memoir about stripping is quite good. But she did it for the experience. Not because she was down on her luck and needed a job.

Which is silly --- her semi-stripping or Anthony's mocking?

whoa, where did the arrow come from?

I just think it's irrelevant whether she was a stripper because of financial need or just because she thought it would be an interesting thing to do.

But that is part of the reason she won. Because of her supposed story, not because of the script. And the story coming out and being flogged was because publicists and managers and agents knew it was a good story and sold the shit out of it. Honest to blog.

I call bullshit on that. Her stripper story had nothing to do with the Oscar win.

However, it may have helped in getting her script sold in the first place.

In reply to Lorelei:

"The point of my comment was to express amazement that you seem to think biological relation makes someone better equipped to parent than an adoptive parent. Or at least that adoptive parents must be at a disadvantage."

Wow. Do you have kids? You might change your mind afterwards (and maybe not as well). I'm surprised that you'd not give any potential validity to these comments because...

"Not only is it easy to find examples to the contrary, but I thought the movie did a pretty good job of BEING an example to the contrary."

Yes, I agree with these statements.

"I'm not adopted, I just find it obvious that adoptive parents are not necessarily worse than the conventional kind."

Definitely, I agree here as well.

But just because you aren't necessarily worse doesn't mean that your adopted child might have, for instance, 1) a different personality than your own that poses for some behavioral challenges, or 2) if you have a combination of biological and adopted kids that this would not create strange feelings for the adopted child (both are situations I have encountered where the adoptive parents have been great parents and have had problems).

Plus-- in my experience it has been rare to meet people who have adopted parents that they love and treat as their own parents to not have some resentment toward their biological parents. (In fact, Juno seems to have some toward her mom as I recall in the movie).

So, yes, I definitely think adopted parents face some *potential*, if not likely, disadvantages over biological parents. I have a feeling that a quick look at some scientific literature would confirm this. But absolutely,
I'm not questioning the fact that adoptive parents can do just as terrific of a job as biological parents.

"I am sure that you can't imagine giving up your child, which is good. However, I am also sure that he or she (sorry, don't remember which) did not come out with an instruction manual, which means you're learning on the job, just as the Jennifer Garner character would have to."

No doubt about this!

In response to crazymonk:

"But actually, I wanted to pipe up and say that any message I took from Juno had little to do with babies and adoption, and more with reversing traditional notions of maturity and responsibility."

What the hell are you talking about? If you are trying to say that the movie differed from the traditional narrative of something like: "how terrible! your teenage and pregant, this is horrible!", then yes you are right. But reversing traditional notions of maturity and responsibility? The movie seems rather conservative and seemingly conventional for all of its clever dialogue and positivity to me...

I.e. Juno in the abortion clinic scene is rather easily persuaded that abortion is not the right choice for her.
Also, the Jason Bateman character is set up for the biggest fall of all. He's made out to be cool throughout the majority of the movie, and then poof! He's an idiot moron who's divorcing his wife to live in a loft and pursue rock n' roll dreams. Time to grow up Jason Bateman and be married, committed, and have some babies you man-child! And
god bless Jennifer Garner's character, soldiering on to adopt a baby because it's the right time in her life to do so. She's on schedule.

And Juno and her boyfriend, they're too young to have a baby, right? They're not on schedule. The tone might be different than that of an afternoon special, but come on, Michael Cera's character should have more fear than he shows in this movie. Essentially Juno and his character are let of the hook because they are young and stupid-- sounds a little like boys will be boys to me a la in college I "experimented" with different substances. The adults swoop end to save the day. And just because they are in LUV we are supposed to think the ending where they play guitars and are having fun and riding bikes is cute and everyone lives happily after?

Gosh, I really sound like I hate the movie, huh? To each their own I suppose. I don't want to sound like such a grump, especially if you guys enjoyed it. Sorry.

"LUV" is not the proper spelling... it should be spelled "WUV".

I was thinking about Juno's maturity compared to Jason Bateman's, but actually you convinced me. The movie *does* emphasize semi-traditional roles in the end (excepting Garner's single motherhood), but in a way that makes room for Juno being a teenage mother and not a lost cause to society.

When have you ever seen a writer of a movie make the talk show rounds? When have you ever even known what a screenwriter of a film looked like? Tarantino and Kevin Smith come to mind, but both were also the director and actors in their films. Look, I think she would have probably won even without her stripper story thing. But the fact is, everyone knew her name and face months and months ago and that helped her win. It is not the only reason she won, but it helped. She had a HUGE publicity push right when the movie came out before she was nominated for anything. Why? She has a good story and was semi-attractive and was sold as a stripper wrote a screenplay. Not a writer who then stripped for a year, wrote a book about it, and then wrote a screenplay. That helped her win. Her name recognition helped her win. Could you even pick the other nominees out of a crowd? How many talk shows did Nancy Oliver, Tony Gilroy, Brad Bird, and Tamara Jenkins appear on?

I don't deny that Diablo Cody as a person became a story in and of itself. Wasn't Charlie Kaufman a stripper once?

He is not a stripper, but if you ask him nicely he will show you his penis. Trust me on this.

on a separate but related note: when the nominees were read before the award was given out, i couldn't help but notice that 3 out of the 5 were women. that's got to be a nice boon for the female writing community, eh?

and for women in general, too. i mean, it's not like a chick's gonna be president any time soon, so best original screenplay oscars are kind of the top of the heap.

Wow! I actually convinced someone of something via harsh persuasive words on the Internet! I'll go to bed on that-- with the realization that's it's probably a rare bird I've seen flying into and out of my life.

Plus, I agree with your bro, the stripper thing has been eagerly mentioned in almost every article I've seen written about Juno. What's so interesting about being a stripper anyway? It definitely helped raise the profile of her as a screenwriter. It's too bad that screenwriters aren't bigger celebrities though in a way, as it seems challenging to write good dialogue/scenes that are interesting, but also sounds realistic. The dialogue in Juno felt like watching Gilmore Girls: it doesn't seem like anyone I have know talks that way with such effortless flow. So I guess I don't think it falls into that category of being good screenwriting (not that it was bad).

I also find it disappointing when a movie with a cool premise and good writing blows it at the end because the writer(s) does/do not have a good idea of how to wrap things up. Take the sci-movie "Sunshine" from last summer as an example. The first hour and a half was awesome. The last half hour really blew everything the first 3/4 accomplished and wasted a hell of a sci-fi effort.

This matter of conclusions is what I think is overwhelming wrong with many movies and the positive movie criticism they receive today. Endings that are open for interpretation are often praised for being fresh and original-- but in fact, it seems to me these endings almost always occur because the writer does not know what the conclusion of his or her story should be. They've developed a clever or interesting premise, but don't know where it should lead. Being different should not always be praised by critics as being good. What happened to good ol' fashioned storytellin, whippersnappers? Alright, definitely time for me to good to bed.

I'm so with you on Sunshine. The first 3/4's was incredibly good, the best space/sci-fi movie I had seen in many years. But then they squandered it with a blurry-cam bad guy. I've said before that endings are overrated, and thus I still recommend Sunshine, but that's a good example of a movie that takes a nosedive.

Ending are essential. Just ask the Patriots.

Slater, what do you mean when you say "your adopted child might have, for instance, 1) a different personality than your own that poses for some behavioral challenges,"? Why would one believe that is any more or less true for an adopted child than a natural-born child? Especially for an at-birth adoption. Do you really believe that personality is strictly biological? I'd go as far as to say it is most likely only a very small part biological, and I don't think there's hard evidence that says much differently.

NYA left off the "s" for "suck my balls."

Jon, I think the question you pose is a good one, and here are a few examples I might suggest to argue that biological factors are evenly weighted with environmental circumstances in their influence of childhood development and personality development.

1) Skin color. It's very common to see white parents with black or Asian children who are adopted. This might affect adopted children significantly in how they are treated in the world and also in how they view themselves.

2) Psychological disorders or pronounced psychological differences that can manifest in behaviors and abilities (athleticism, temperment, intellectual ability, an so on). How do you think you might relate to having an adopted child who wasn't your intellectual equal? Imagine how Juno's character would have reacted if the adopting parents were not smart. Remember that some children put up for adoption are the result of rapes (where one of the parents presumably has some issues).

3) Medical problems related to drug use of biological parents prior to having the baby, and or the socioeconomic (environmental) circumstances of parents prior to giving up the child (think dirty unsanitary apartments affecting early childhood health).

Also, keep in mind that the environmental circumstances for adopted children also play a role in the rest of their lives and how they view the world (think orphanages). I wonder what percentage of adoptions occur right at birth.

Other things that Juno does not touch upon or discuss that bring it's light-heartedness to the subject somewhat more under scrutiny in my mind:

1) Being a single parent (I now understand better) is unquestionably a bigger challenge than being with a partner-- I used to think this was just the lame fodder of politicians who needed to talk about Americans who needed the government's helping hand. Jennifer Garner's character is going to have a hard time as a single parent and that part is not even hinted at by the movie.

2) I personally see ethical problems with the world's population growth. Having a baby is the ultimate act of consumption and thus affects our natural resources more than any other single action. Since I work in the conservation field, I recognize that I think this is more of a personal issue than it is a mainstream issue. It's a very "American" and perhaps ignorant stance to think that there is a market for undesired children that are the result of unwanted pregnancies. Think of all of the children being adopted from China. So in essence, having a child these days is largely a luxury. If Juno and her boyfriend bought a Lexus with their parents' money, they would unquestionably be forced to return it.

Well, speaking of babies, I need to take care of my baby right now, so bye for now!

. . .

It was great to get on the subway Monday morning to see the NY Post's huge headline "Stripper Wins Oscar!" or somesuch with the pic of Cody kissing Oscar's head in her leopard print Dior. Ah, the Post...

I had very low expectations when I saw Juno, and the movie exceeded these -- I enjoyed it and I laughed. Mostly, it was refreshing to see a movie choc full of female characters. Allison Janney is always fun to watch.

Unrelated topic: am I crazy to really like the director's cut of Troy? Watched it this weekend, never saw theatrical release version. Perhaps my bring this up will revive this post for another day: please make fun.

Also, Cody was on Letterman right before Liam with Josh Ritter in January. And that was her post-nomination visit, she had already been a guest in the fall.

1) I fail to see how an adopted baby of different race is a different circumstance from a single parent raising a natural-born baby who has two parents of different race. Not looking like the parent raising youis the issue here; being biologically related to him/her is not.

2) The jury is, AFAIK, still out on how much of this is nature and how much nurture. At best it seems like genetics gives you a predisposition, and this predisposition can come from a non-exhibiting parent, as genetics are not as simple as "I'm schizo, so you're schizo" (or whatever else you want to put in there). You should be prepared for your child to not exhibit the same characteristics as you -- she's not a mini-Slater, she's her own person...who will be greatly influenced by the decisions you make as parents. I would guess there is a low-to-zero chance she will be an oil executive some day, but this is because her parents raise her to believe in valuing the environment for its natural beauty over its storehold of non-renewable resources, not because she has green genes. And yeah, some adoptions are the result of rape. Some natural births are, too. I have no reason to believe a product of rape raised by one parent (one would imagine the mother) is going to turn out differently than if s/he were raised by a non-related single.

3) I acknowledge that drug use by the birth mother during pregnancy can affect the child, while drug use by the adoptive mother during pregnancy is unlikely to (unless the adoptive mother attacked the birth mother in a drug-induced rage). But I still don't see why the natural mother would be any better equipped to handle the child than an adopter. In fact, one could argue the reverse is the case.

Second 1) (you started renumbering) Of the two possible single mothers presented to us in this movie, whom do you think is better equipped to raise a child? Sure, it would be easier with a partner, but that wasn't really an option here. Again, this doesn't argue for favoring genes over means. It argues against it, and I think strongly.

2) It goes without saying that Juno and George Michael made a mistake. Would you rather the whole movie been about them being shamed for it? The whole point of the movie was to follow what happened once that mistake had been made. A movie about yelling at people who get pregnant accidentally is called "Dr. Laura: The Documentary" and is a different movie from Juno.

Jon, before I respond to your thoughts, I want to make sure that I mention this article I found after a quick google scholar search. I scanned through the introduction and it seems to validate both of our arguments from this conversation in some way-- although the authors are taking your perspective as a starting point for their research.

Hamilton, L., Cheng, S., and B. Powell. 2007. Adoptive parents, adaptive parents: Evaluating the importance of biological ties for parental investment. American Sociological Review. 72: 95-116.

Here are a few excerpts:

Our work also follows that of Biblarz and
Raftery (1999) in questioning the re-emerging
consensus among some social scientists that
the traditional, two-biological-parent household
is in the best interests of children (for evidence
of this consensus, see Amato 2005; Amato and
Keith 1991; Case, Lin, and McLanahan 2000,
2001; Popenoe 1993, 1999; Sun 2003).3 The
implicit point of much empirical work on single-
parent families and stepfamilies concerns
“intact” biological families. For example, Amato
(2005) asserts that, “The weight of the evidence
strongly suggests that growing up without two
biological parents in the home increases children’s
risk of a variety of cognitive, emotional,
and social problems” (emphasis added, p. 85).
Scholarship in this vein typically concludes that
the absence of a biological parent and/or the
presence of a nonbiological parent are linked to
lower levels of resource allocation, educational
attainment, and socioeconomic success for
children (Astone and McLanahan 1991; Biblarz
and Raftery 1993; Case, Lin, and McLanahan
1999; Glenn 1994; McLanahan and Sandefur
1994)...

Some scholars contend that although adoptive
families encounter unique barriers to family
functioning, they also have particular
psychological and social strengths (Cohen,
Coyne, and Duvall 1993; Lansford et al. 2001).
For example, Kirk (1984) suggests that adoptive
parents often have intensified commitments to
creating an ideal family—particularly if their
path to parenthood is long and costly. Adoptive
parents also may have a more positive view of
their children and experiences as parents (Priel
et al. 2000). Lending support to compensation
theories, these strengths tend to coexist with
low self-evaluations of parenting ability that
may reflect feelings of ambivalence, doubt, and
guilt surrounding adoptive parenthood (Priel et
al. 2000; Verhulst, Althaus, and Versluis-Den
Bieman 1990).

Literature and media coverage of problems
adoptive children face may also prime adoptive
parents to see and respond to signs of their children
struggling (Miall 1996; Priel et al. 2000;
Waggenspack 1998). Indeed, adoptive parents
may feel the need to react to the negative effects
of children’s experiences prior to adoption,
including nutritional deficiencies, prenatal exposure
to drugs and alcohol, genetic inheritance
of psychological disorders, abuse, long-term
institutionalization, and stress, for which adoptive
children are at a greater risk (Frank et al.
1996; Verhulst et al. 1990; Yates et al. 1998).
They may devote time and resources to their
children in the hope of negating real or perceived
barriers to their children’s success.

Now, in response to some of your comments:

"1) I fail to see how an adopted baby of different race is a different circumstance from a single parent raising a natural-born baby who has two parents of different race. Not looking like the parent raising youis the issue here; being biologically related to him/her is not."

Hmm.. Yes, you are making a technical point here (i.e. it's possible for whites to adopt a white baby). It's only if the baby has a different appearance that it's a problem. Am I understanding you correctly?

But don't you think that the experience of a black person who was adopted by white parents will be dramatically different than that for a black person who was adopted by black parents (this goes for the parents as well)?

"You should be prepared for your child to not exhibit the same characteristics as you -- she's not a mini-Slater, she's her own person...who will be greatly influenced by the decisions you make as parents. I would guess there is a low-to-zero chance she will be an oil executive some day, but this is because her parents raise her to believe in valuing the environment for its natural beauty over its storehold of non-renewable resources, not because she has green genes."

Yes, I agree. But genes DO play a role in intellectual and physiological development. But I think we agree here-- the degree to which is the case is up for debate.

"And yeah, some adoptions are the result of rape. Some natural births are, too. I have no reason to believe a product of rape raised by one parent (one would imagine the mother) is going to turn out differently than if s/he were raised by a non-related single."

Hmm.. I'm not sure I agree. People who are raped generally find the experience to be life-changing. The transferance of feelings about sexuality, power, and safety from a parent who was raped (adopted or biological) to his or her child is going to be very different from the feelings that a non-raped parent will transfer to his/her child.

Plus, how many people do you know or have you read about that maintain relationships with people that rape them in the long-term? Thinking more so of adult-adult rapes (not adult-child rapes where the child might no have choice in the matter).

"3) I acknowledge that drug use by the birth mother during pregnancy can affect the child, while drug use by the adoptive mother during pregnancy is unlikely to (unless the adoptive mother attacked the birth mother in a drug-induced rage). But I still don't see why the natural mother would be any better equipped to handle the child than an adopter. In fact, one could argue the reverse is the case."

Here's what I said a while back to Lorelei:

"So, yes, I definitely think adopted parents face some *potential*, if not likely, disadvantages over biological parents. I have a feeling that a quick look at some scientific literature would confirm this. But absolutely,
I'm not questioning the fact that adoptive parents can do just as terrific of a job as biological parents."

I'm just pointing out that people adopt babies who have sometimes been affected by the biological parents' drug use-- which might pose challenges.

"Second 1) (you started renumbering) Of the two possible single mothers presented to us in this movie, whom do you think is better equipped to raise a child? Sure, it would be easier with a partner, but that wasn't really an option here. Again, this doesn't argue for favoring genes over means. It argues against it, and I think strongly."

Why wasn't it an option for Juno and George Michael to raise the baby? Jump on the reality train man. There
are countless people who have had babies at this age and
sucked it up (even though it wasn't fun). I'm not suggesting that people should always have to suffer, but on the other hand, to find an adoptive parent like they do in the movie seems rather unlikely in most circumstances worldwide (it's a little bit of a fantasy that it would be so easy).

"2) It goes without saying that Juno and George Michael made a mistake. Would you rather the whole movie been about them being shamed for it? The whole point of the movie was to follow what happened once that mistake had been made. A movie about yelling at people who get pregnant accidentally is called "Dr. Laura: The Documentary" and is a different movie from Juno."

Touche, my friend. Touche. Watching Dr. Laura sounds painful.

I'm glad to see that paper agrees with me, but I'm skeptical of social science without statistics, whether it makes my point or no. Anyway, on to our speculative debate:

Hmm.. Yes, you are making a technical point here (i.e. it's possible for whites to adopt a white baby). It's only if the baby has a different appearance that it's a problem. Am I understanding you correctly?

No, that wasn't my point. I'm saying that the issues faced with regard to a mismatch between self-perception of race and parental race (i.e. child has parent of different race) are no different between a black child raised by a single white adoptive mother and a mixed-race child raised by its single white mother.

genes DO play a role in intellectual and physiological development. But I think we agree here-- the degree to which is the case is up for debate.

We may technically agree, but I believe nurture has much more of an impact than nature, enough to say we substantively disagree. I have no reason to believe that if you raised the infant child of an oil executive she would turn out any differently with regard to her environmental attitudes than your natural-born daughter. Same with pretty much any other tendency.

With regard to the children of rape bit, I'm not talking about a two-parent family raising the child (at least not the two biological parents). I'm comparing single adopter with single mother. You say:

Hmm.. I'm not sure I agree. People who are raped generally find the experience to be life-changing. The transferance of feelings about sexuality, power, and safety from a parent who was raped (adopted or biological) to his or her child is going to be very different from the feelings that a non-raped parent will transfer to his/her child.

I agree with that, but I don't think it makes the raped mother more fit to raise her child than an adoptive mother would. She could be just as fit, but she could also have psychological issues with respect to the child, and she suffered a traumatic event that could leave her psychologically damaged. If she feels like she'd be an unfit mother because of this I would not want to question those feelings and encourage her to raise the child because of some notion that biological mothers are more fit to raise their children than adopters.

With regard to the drug use:

I'm just pointing out that people adopt babies who have sometimes been affected by the biological parents' drug use-- which might pose challenges.

Yes, but these babies would have been affected by their biological parents' drug use regardless of who raised them. Given that someone is going to raise this child, do you think it would, a priori, be better for the (drug-addicted) mother or some adopter who knew what s/he was getting into?

There are countless people who have had babies at this age and sucked it up (even though it wasn't fun). I'm not suggesting that people should always have to suffer, but on the other hand, to find an adoptive parent like they do in the movie seems rather unlikely in most circumstances worldwide.

Fine, but in the case of this movie Sydney Bristow happened to be there. Given her existence and desire, would you still consign the child to a difficult upbringing because of simple biology?

You seem to feel there is an inherent magical bond between parents and their natural offspring that makes them the best possible family unit. I don't think that's true and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. Instead, I've seen evidence that a multi-parent family is better than a single-parent family and that having stable parentage is better than having parentage that alters over the formative years, all of which I would accept, and none of which requires a matching DNA test.

Jon, I think we are talking past each other. I agree with most of what you are saying.

Adoptive parents are just as fit as biological parents to be good parents.

The point I am trying to make is that because of the circumstances of adopting children, many adoptive parents face challenges that biological parents will not face. I was interested to see the theory in the paper though about how adoptive parents compensate more though because of their fear that they need to live up to some standard of good parenting.

This is what I originally wrote about Juno's implied messaging:

"it seems a little phony to suggest that things are that simple for people who were adopted. People who have adopted kids who I know have suggested to me that it isn't...

That being said, if one can accept the message as I describe it to be Juno's theme, then it does become somewhat problematic, because it essentially is saying:
go ahead! Have a baby! It's no big deal! Someone will take care of it! Just make sure it is someone who really wants to love that baby."

So, do you agree with the last thing I said, that it's ok to have baby and not think it's a big deal since there will be someone who wants to take care of it?

I doubt it. But if you are saying that putting a baby up for adoption in circumstances like those in Juno is acceptable, then I totally, totally agree.

I am just saying that 1) adoptive parents might face some challenges because of the issues that come with adopting a child and 2) that as a movie Juno's light-hearted tone did not resonate with me because I think the issue of teenage pregnancy should be treated with less of a cavalier attitude. The tone of the movie is that there is some kind of indy-cool aspect to having a baby as the movie promotes it through the vehicle of a cool wise-talking teenage mom and her cool accepting parents coping in an undramatic way rather than a Dr. Laura way. Maybe that's overanalyzing it, but as we know-- the movie was nominated for best picture! So people must have thought something deep or important was manifesting in this movie.