This past weekend, after failing to get tickets to see W., I went to see Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. I mean who can say no to Michael Cera's sarcastic, self-conscious, nerdiness, that makes feminists gush. Yes, I like quiet, shy, nerdy boys. So. What.
I love movies that try and capture youth culture. Maybe because I am obsessed with youth culture, or have participated in almost every sub-culture of my generation, but I am always fascinated with Hollywood depictions of spaces and places, most people don't have access to or know about. I always relate to characters that are underdogs, that don't fit in with the popular kids and choose to hang out with the punk/goth/skater/hip-hop kids. I especially like movies that depict one eventful night where they are spending the whole night chasing a party, band or DJ. Those movies make my heart smile because I spent so much of my youth chasing parties, DJs, bands, boys, or the next fun thing in the night. They allow you to see what I saw-nerdy kids go to parties, we have fun and adventures without the judgment and gaze of the mainstream normative non-queer world.
Nick and Norah promised to be all these things and in many ways delivered, but I left the movie with a bad taste in my mouth in its depiction of youth culture and I am not really sure why. (And surely the chewing gum that went from mouth to mouth to toilet back to mouth to mouth, left a very bad taste in my mouth.) I suppose I agree with what the NYTimes review to an extent.
The tunes that play alongside their nocturnal adventure express longing, sadness, anxiety and joy with more intensity than they can muster themselves. Nick, played by the wet-noodle heartthrob Michael Cera ("Juno," "Superbad") and Norah (Kat Dennings, who has a hint of Kate Winslet's soft, smart loveliness in her face) are, like so many kids these days, most comfortable with diffidence, understatement and a deadpan style of address that collapses the distinction between irony and sincerity.
But are youth today more comfortable with diffidence and deadpan? Isn't youth culture angrier than it has ever been? I suppose in the world of privileged late night city dwelling rich kids that go to private school, it is *all* about understatement. So what I felt more than anything was this attempted juxtaposition between the nightlife, dreams and desires of the alternative lifestyles of previous generations onto just plain normal, "Nick and Norah." Yet, the story line of the nerdy boy prevails in that, a nerdy boy can gain social privilege, but all the girls have to be really hot, even if they are nerdy. I want my real nerdy alternative riot punk rock hip hop bitch girls back. That's all I am saying.
There is also this running theme of heteronormativity (I mean it is a straight romantic comedy) but it is covered up by cute moments and interactions between Nick's three gay band mates and the straight characters. It is clear that it is accepted, understood and even cool to be cool with gay in NYC nightlife for young hip youth. What is not clear is why our three gay "fairies," if you will, are obsessed with making sure that Nick and Norah get together. And in order to do so put the life of Norah's best friend, the very drunk Carolyn, potentially in danger. It was as though they had nothing better to do than support the story of heteronormativity, so despite an attempt at showing how gay inclusive the story is, at the end of the day, we still want a straight fairy tale romance. Perhaps this is intentional, but I am thinking no.
Finally, there are two moments in the movie that left me feeling the most uncomfortable and both of them include leaving young women that look like American Apparel ads in their child-porno-fetish-young-blond-girls-with-messy-eye-make-up way, alone and abandoned in dark and "dangerous places." The NYTimes suggests this is a moment of post feminism.
Instead, there are a series of small crises and tiny epiphanies, all adding up to a story that courts triviality in its pursuit of charm.The charm is there, not least in the film's vision of New York as a happy playground for underage night owls. The city's streets are so benign that Nick's abandonment of a girl (not Norah) in a desolate spot on the West Side can seem like a forgivable failure of gallantry, rather than an act of passive-aggressive, potentially homicidal malice. Everyone has a cellphone, after all, and the criminals and crazies that used to haunt these neighborhoods are little more than flickering memories from older movies.
I have to say, I found these bits of the film to be confusing. Beyond the overly sexual depictions of young women (which I don't necessarily think is inaccurate and wouldn't think was bad if they weren't strictly for the male gaze, not the "triviality" that NYT claims it is intended to be), but my initial reaction is to fear or be upset that my imagination is left to wonder what happens to a 17 year old girl blacked out drunk in a bus station or left by the water on the West side. Or better yet, what she is thinking when she wakes up in a van and doesn't know how she got there. None of those story lines would seem ironic if they weren't playing on the threat of sexual assault. So was he turning the story on its head and suggesting that rape is a myth in the ways the media understands it so it is a more then an apt side theme or does he just hate his female characters and making apologies for the threat of sexual violence? I must say that part of me felt relieved with the reckless abandon with which this piece of the plot went, that maybe it is all good, but then another part of me was wondering why were the women left in such disempowering ways letting the imagination run wild. I wasn't really sure.
Finally, I thought it was interesting that the Barbie-looking popular girl that wants Nick the Nerd back, tells Norah she has heard that Norah has never had an orgasm. Do 17 year olds gossip about each other's orgasms? Are we actually in a post-feminist state? Someone fill me in.
Overall, I liked the movie, it was cute, had a great soundtrack and it made me love NYC even more than I already do, but these subtle details certainly interrupted my viewing pleasure.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist: Just throw away the damn chewing gum. .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/9971
If you haven't yet--read the book! The book is really pretty darn great, and several of the major plot liberties the movie takes are moments that squicked you out the most.
Other folks have talked about this already, but one other annoying feature of the movie is that Norah in the book is constantly wearing a flannel shirt, which didn't make it into the movie--probably because the filmmakers didn't want to cover up Kat Denning's breasts for the whole film. (I wish I were joking.)
The writer who adapted the screenplay is from the generation depicted.
Film adaptations have to be different from the books for filmic reasons.
I read the book a few weeks ago-- the terrific dialogue (or more frequently, internal monologue), non-heteronormativity, and sense that the writers didn't underestimate their (ostensibly) adolescent audience (though I am 35) had me really excited for the film. But, it was a big letdown.
The film generally captured the sweet, ironic, and smart feel of the book, but a few points really missed the mark. I think that was mostly due to concerns about the rating and just generally botched adaptation. For example, Triss gossips about Norah never having had an orgasm, which is apparently an attempt at shorthand for the book's more complicated representation of the ways Norah has been affected by her relationship with Tal. Because of the way he has treated her, and the ways he has seemed dismissive, demanding, or uninterested in her sexuality, she fears she might be "frigid." Her night with Nick helps her to gain confidence in her suspicion that she is not somehow flawed because she her desires and Tal's are not in sync, or because she is even repelled by him when he treats her offhandedly.
As for the heteronormativity, that REALLY disappointed me in the film, because one of the most delightful parts of the book was the representations of the queer characters, and in particular Nick's interaction with them. My heart broke a little when (in the film) Nick asked Thom to stop holding his hand because he was embarrassed. The Nick of the book NEVER would have done so---in fact, in the book I think Thom puts his head on Nick's shoulder, too, and they sit like that for a while. I hated that they felt Nick had to assert his heterosexuality in that moment that I had LOVED in the novel. (OH! Not to mention, in the book Triss and Norah make out! And not because anyone is looking on, or to cause a scene. They are alone, and when the kiss is over, Norah has some idea what Nick might have seen in Triss. But of course, this is totally absent in a PG-13 film.)
I *get* that films and books are different. But I think that a more skillful adaptation would have held on to some of those key plot elements that made so many readers fall in love with Nick, Norah, and their night in NYC.
sorry, posted before I was finished...
Wardrobe decisions are determined by the costume designer and the director usually. The producer's may get involved if the costume's are part of the product placement in the film. Often in independent films, the costume designer and/or the producing team find designers willing to donate clothing in exchange for a nod in the credits.
Also, the book was probably written a few years ago- perhaps the wardrobe change decision had to do with updating the characters look?
It could also have something to do with cleavage, but, that isn't necessarily the case.
Hara, the book was first published in 2006, so "updating the character's look" doesn't really hold water--Norah was wearing flannel long after grunge had fallen out of vogue.
The movie was also released by Columbia Pictures, which isn't exactly independent.
I'm well aware that some books are easier or more difficult to adapt to the screen, and that some films end up very different from their source texts. But when those differences mean a film deviates from a book majorly--particularly in tone or message rather than just stylistically--I think we should absolutely be talking about it.
@ aliciamaud74
It is possible
that the characters were more heteronorm. in the film than in the book to prevent being placed in the GLBTQ film genre and thereby appearing to appeal to a much smaller demographic.
What I find disturbing about this film and Juno is the lack of women, in non tradition female crew positions, in the credits.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0981227/fullcredits#writers
There are even men in some of the crew positions that women usually perform.
@hara
It could be. (Though the makeout scene was on the steamy side, and we know that the ratings board is pretty heavy-handed with same-sex scenes.) And I appreciate even those babysteps being taken toward representation of diversity in films. But I'm the advisor of my school's GSA, and I had high hopes for sharing a queer-friendly film with my students. (Not that it's UN-friendly. Just not what I had hoped.)
@mk
Do you know what the budget was?
That is the determining factor whether a film is indie or not
indie meaning non union crew and a budget under 5 million.
If the budget was over 5 million, then it has to be union- both IATSE and DGA
I did not suggest no one talk about the film in any way shape or form. Just offering a perspective from within the industry that is being discussed.
It's important to note that the Director is male, the executive producers are male, etc.
Once the screenplay was adapted by the writers, it was likely changed again by the director. The producers may have helped shape it as well.
The final decision about the wardrobe is usually up to the director, who looks at the costume designer's suggestions.
And yes, once again, it was a male director- as is most often the case
especially with DGA films.
Women directors make up less than 8 percent of the Directors in the guild.
aha-
the budget was 9 mill.
So it is not independent and it was both IATSE and DGA (unions).
@aliciamaud74 I assume you were hoping for a PG-13 movie to show, so you don't have to deal with permission slips for kids under 18? It's such a bitch- movies with queer themes that would probably get a PG-13 otherwise are often bumped up to R because of homosexual content.
As far as PG-13 titles--I can recommend DEBS, which is campy and hilarious, and Saved, which isn't all about queer themes but I think handles them in a good and funny way.
Yea seriously! How could gum even taste so good for that long? I do have to say that I was happy there was a movie about a local music scene, similar to the one I live near. However I agree, even though the Barbrie-like girl was annoying, he could've dropped her off in a safer place. That was assholish, even though she was an ass to him in another way earlier.
Yikes- just realized I threw the phrase "it's such a bitch" into my last comment without thinking. Argh for non-precise and demeaning language. My apologies, everyone.
@Hara Slightly off topic, but since you seem to have experience in the industry--if a movie were truly independent, wouldn't it be released by a non-major distributor? I got the impression that Sony releases a lot of its bigger pictures through distributors like Columbia Pictures, while independents go through Sony Pictures Classics.
And I think the decision about wardrobe--whether ditching the flannel was written into the screenplay or not--says a lot about how they wanted to market this movie. The flannel gave Norah character and supported her identity as a non-traditional beauty, which comes off really weak in the movie. (Yeah, Tris tells her she's unattractive, but I think a lot of audience members didn't buy it.)
completely tangential, but you guys know that flannel is like, popular again, right? at least as of last season.
Bah, humbug. I was promised certain things about the soundtrack, and when I actually saw it, it was kind of a let down. (I've also heard from one of my friends who hung out with a guy in Page France that Bishop Allen are kind of assholes, so I'm trying to gently shove them into the "Still good but too big for their britches" column in my mind.)
It's just a movie.
Thanks, mk! Saved is a favorite with some of my kids, but I haven't seen the other! (:
Haven't seen the movie nor read the book; but it's interesting poitn you bring forward, especially the one about irony and sincerity (and the distinction between the two being fragile/collapsing).
There is surely something postmodern about the new irony (or should i say 'new' 'irony'); if you're interested you should maybe check out baudrillard and his stuff on the simulacrum - my 50 cents is that irony seems to be a way to deal with the way in which cultural frames of reference mediate/structure out innermost feelings, our attitudes to crises or joy, and outlooks and perceptions of self and other (Other?). In other words, if you're constantly aware of the way in which others have felt the same, or done the same, have depicted the same (in novels, movies, any cultural representation really) i can imagine a certain wariness creeping in; irony being both an acknowledgement of that referentiality and signal of one's own cultural sophistication/maturity.
If you like youth culture AND irony please make sure you watch 24 hour party people, british movie about the rise of post-punk and dance culture in manchester, UK (back then it was called Madchester :)), if you haven't done so already. It's a cult classic here and I don't know if it has that status in the US. It's a very post modern movie, very intertextual and referential, all brought with typical british irony and wit.
i'm sorry to just have taken up one part of your post; it's just that i can't really contribute in a different way as I haven't seen the movie. should i, ir should i not? I'll see what the rest of you think :)
We do talk about orgasms.
I thought it was pretty clear why Nick's friends wanted him and Norah to hit it off: he was unhealthily (is that a word?) obsessed with his manipulative ex-girlfriend and it was turning him into a really lame friend. Nevermind how shallow it is to assume that a new relationship is going to fix a nasty break-up... they ARE in high school.
@ Ziggy-
As a standalone movie, if you like teen romances and want to stray a tiny bit from the mainstream, yeah, you should see it. I particularly liked that the sex scene [SPOILER ALERT] was all about her orgasm, which is pretty rare in romances period, let alone teen romances.
If you've read the book (and, again, I recommend it), you may be disappointed by some of the divergences in the film.
(And, total shameless self-promotion, but inspired by this post, I just posted about books vs. films over at the Young Adult Library Services Association blog.)
Although I loved the book and the movie, I was also uncomfortable sitting in the theatre. When I got home and thought about it I realized I was disturbed by th figure of the female drunk, Caroline. I feel that the quintessential single party girl is ostensibly a warning sign to all us single chicks out there who don’t have boyfriends to tame our wily, feminine ways. But Caroline is the most powerful character in the film; she’s just Courtney-loving life, vomiting in ice cream freezers, sweet-talking food out of strangers, passing out in bus station bathrooms and fishing her cell phone( and more importantly) her gum out of barf-filled toilets.
Caroline is the free bird that will not be caged by the virgin-bitch dichotomy implicitly touted in Nick & Norah’s through the characters of Norah and Tris. Although she doesn’t get either love or her comeuppance at the flick’s conclusion, Caroline gets something invaluable that neither Norah nor Tris gets: an unscripted future. Caroline successfully stirs the pot of female identity.
please tell me brown trash punk's comment was a lame attempt at sarcasm.
while it is "just a movie," it is also part of a pervasive culture of self-perpetuating images and narratives that are harmful to women and girls. the discussion about why certain themes or scenes in popular media are unsettling to feminists is an important one, and telling us that it's "just a movie" does nothing to further the dialogue.
@ MissT
I disagree that Caroline is "the most powerful character in the film." She was often an irresponsible, inconsiderate friend; her desire to party - and hit on cute boys - trumped her promise to her friend every time. I saw her function in the movie as a manifestation of Norah consistently and excessively sacrificing herself for others than as a warning to single party girls.
I thought overall that Caroline was portrayed very sweetly. It seemed to me that she was confident and free spirited, if very flawed. The movie didn't seem to look down on her or judge her in anyway.
To answer your question: "Do 17 yr-old girls gossip about each others orgasms?" The answer is yes, well, some of them do at least. I think it'd be fairly rare nation-wide, but maybe in super-liberal places like NYC it'd be more common...
I really loved this film, if for no other reason than it reminds me of my own nights on the town and that "anything is possible feel". The only thing that really gave me pause was when Nick leaves Triss after her "dance". Inside I cheered because he wasn't falling for that kind of crap but also cringed because that was a pretty dangerous thing to do. Overall, though, I think it works because the movie doesn't try to be too realistic. High school kids allowed to stay out all night without checking in and no curfew and with seemingly unlimited access to bars and alcohol as well as no portrayals of the more nitty gritty side of NY made me believe that this is more of a fantasy version of NY where leaving a girl on the street would not mean any dangerous repercussions. It is NYC, but it is a fantasy version of NYC.
In high school (it ended 3 years ago for me) we definitely talked about orgasms and I definitely knew which of my friends hadn't had one or hadn't had one from someone else. However, it really wasn't something that would be widely known and gossiped about, I don't think. The issue wasn't whether she was having an orgasm, it was whether she was having sex (and by "sex," it was understood that "penis-in-vagina" was what was meant) and whether or not she was a slut for doing so.
I absolutely despised the hook-up scene. I haven't read the book, but it sounds like that plot line was much better there. In this context it was like "Norah hasn't had an orgasm. Nick saves the day!" And, um, he does it in like 30 seconds. From the line about how Norah's pants are terrible pants (because Nick can't unbutton them easily) to Norah's pretty unrealistic recorded orgasm noises (they're in a recording studio) it was under a minute. Not likely. I have managed to get myself off in under one minute exactly once in my life, which includes about 11 years of regular masturbation. The first time another person got me off it took like 25 minutes at least--it takes time to figure out what your partner likes, especially when you're an awkward, probably not that experienced 17-year-old. I also really disliked Norah's constant "I'm not pretty I'm not pretty" thing...that was probably put into better context in the book too? I though this scene was patently ridiculous.
I also really disliked the final scene with Tal, where he's holding onto her arm and asking if she'll still give their CD to her dad. I just could not for the life of me figure out why she was still confused, after she'd already screwed him over in a pretty badass way (that was one scene I actually liked) AND apparently found a pretty nice guy who could get her off and who actually seemed to have some things in common with her. I couldn't figure out why it took so long for her to pull away and bail, since it seemed like she'd already pretty much decided Tal sucked--and he should have KNOWN that she'd decided that since he got stuck with a huge bill that was at least one zero higher than it should have been.
Besides that, the gum was terrible (I was muttering NO NO NO NO NO NO under my breath as she went back into the vomit-filled toilet for it), the constant homophobia was horrendous, and everything was so unrealistic. Dude, if three guys got me into the back of a van and told me I needed to put on an underwire bra so I could seduce some guy I barely knew, I'd fucking punch them in the face. And that was true at age 17-18 as well. The Caroline plot was also overwhelmingly bad, both because it was revolting and because it played so heavily on the constant threat of rape.
Yeah. In case you couldn't tell, I really disliked this movie. I saw it with my roommate a couple days ago because we both wanted to see a crap movie so we could numb our brains in the midst of midterms, and it only half worked because I was so appalled most of the time.