Ellen or Elliot?

 Some 12 years ago I saw a film Juno, and commented on it: Film Review: Juno and here.  As I observed at the time, as well as its humour, the film shows how an unplanned pregnancy can be viewed in a positive way and explores how all those involved - the parents, the boyfriend and school friends - respond to the situation. If I recall correctly, it includes a scene where Juno leaves an abortion clinic, in effect making the decision to continue her pregnancy. Wikipedia gives a fuller account of the film here.

The title role of Juno was played by Ellen Page, who has now "come out as 'trans'". It is sad to see just how quickly sources such as Wikipedia, for example, are willing to change the casting in their post about the film from "Ellen" to "Elliot". Because the role of Juno in the film is not just a female role; because of the nature of the film's plot, it is an essentially feminine role, too. 

Whilst there is a courtesy in addressing someone now in the way in which they ask to be addressed, without that implying anything other than courtesy towards the person, it will be unfortunate if a retrospective "re-gendering" should in any way overshadow the essentially female casting of a film that pre-dates transition. Whilst I might greet him now as Elliot, in Juno she remains Ellen Page.

Transitioning - a single narrative?

 What is now known as "gender reassignment surgery" would, in an earlier time, have been referred to as a "sex change operation". The latter term is perhaps more honest in public discussion, avoiding as it does the conflation of the idea of physiological sex to that of social presentation that occurs with the current prevalent usage of the term "gender".

In February 2008, I saw a film called Juno, starring Ellen Page (who has since transitioned to a man and is now known as Elliot Page). See here for comments relating to Juno that have appeared previously on this blog. The part played by Ellen Page in Juno, as an unexpectedly pregnant high school teenager, attracted very significant acclaim at the time the film was released.

Elliot Page has recently gained media coverage following an interview with Oprah Winfrey, in which he speaks of how liberating he found being able to have "top surgery" and so present visibly to himself as male. UK coverage can be read on the BBC news website and the Guardian newspaper website.

“I want people to know that not only has it been life-changing for me, I do believe it is life-saving and it’s the case for so many people,” the actor told Oprah Winfrey on her new show for Apple TV+...

Page said the surgery has given him newfound energy “because it is such a freeing, freeing experience”, adding: “This is incredibly new. I feel like I haven’t gotten to be myself since I was 10 years old.”

 In the interview, Elliot speaks of feeling a discomfort with his own body that was only partly relieved by coming out as a gay woman (and entering a same sex marriage from which he has divorced); and how his (partial) transitioning enables him to now feel comfortable with his body. He goes on to challenge steps being taken in the United States in response to concerns about the treatment of children for gender reassignment, that he sees as limiting access to important health care. (There is some echo in those steps of concerns raised here in the UK about the work of the Gender Identity Development Service at the Tavistock Clinic.)

Whilst it is important to treat Elliot Page's account of his own experience with respect - it is a courtesy, I think, to refer to him now as he would wish to be referred, and hence my use of "Elliot" and masculine pronouns in this post - it does nevertheless raise two questions in the context of a wider debate.

Firstly, a narrative such as Elliot Page's should not be seen as the only and normative narrative. Alongside those suffering from gender dysphoria who may be helped by transitioning, there are also young people who may not be helped by considering transitioning, and who simply need health care as they grow up through puberty in the sex that they already have. Our public conversation needs to recognise that there are differing background stories - multiple narratives - around gender dsyphoria, and that an assumption in favour of transitioning is not always going to be helpful. The public acceptance of transitioning by the media and wider culture, which in effect promotes this acceptance to others, is not going to be helpful for everyone.

Elliot Page's earlier experience as Ellen Page in the film Juno also highlights a second question in a very visible way. He has transitioned (at least partly) from the female sex to the male sex; he is now someone who was of the female sex but is now of the male sex. How far can someone identify fully with their new physiological sex, or, as is implied by the identification as part of a "trans" community, is the fundamental identification that of a person who was of one sex and is now of the other, that of a person who has changed sex?

[In December 2020, I posted indirectly on this last point, in the context of the alacrity of media sources such as Wikipedia in changing the previous "Ellen Page" in their cast list for the film Juno to "Elliot Page": Ellen or Elliot?]

Film Review: Juno

Today I saw a delightful film at Greenwich Picture House. Ellen Page was enchanting as the teenage, Juno (her Dad had named her after a Roman Goddess), who finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy. It has an upbeat, positive attitude to a situation that is often portrayed as a disaster. The music helps to carry the story line along at a jaunty pace. It is poignant, you will laugh at loud and the film appeals across generations.

The reviews of this film concentrate on the humour, giving the impression that it is largely a comedy. Whilst there is a good deal of dry humour, it also deals quite movingly with how all those involved in the situation (Juno's parents, boyfriend, school friends etc) react to it.

This feel-good film will leave a smile on your face and the catchy music firmly in your head as you leave the cinema. Star rating: 5 out of 5, a "must see".

[review written by a guest poster]

Film review: Up in the Air

Zero and I went to see this film yesterday, as one of us (I'm not saying who) had a birthday.  It is interesting to compare reviews. This from Thinking Faith, the Jesuit on-line journal:

I would certainly recommend Up In The Air as a brilliantly acted, well produced movie, that owing to its stellar cast, will no doubt gain a fistful of awards in the coming months. But a somewhat lacking ending will prevent this film from true greatness.

And this from the United States Catholic Bishops Conference movie reviews site:

The film contains off-screen adulterous and nonmarital sexual activity, brief rear nudity, much sexual talk including lesbianism and masturbation references, a few uses of profanity and much rough and crude language. The USCCB Office for Film & Broadcasting classification is L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R -- restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

 The film classification here in the UK is a 15 - no-one under the age of 15 may watch this film in a cinema, or purchase it on video. That Thinking Faith's reviewer does not see the sexual content and foul language in the film as worthy of comment in her review is a cause for reflection for a review published on a Catholic site. Whilst I wouldn't want to say that this is a film that Catholics should boycott, I certainly think that, should they see it and comment on it, they should do so with a suitably critical mind.

I found the use of the F*** word, and the sexualised talk in a number of the scenes, problematical in two regards. The first is that the film gives the impression that the use of such language is quite the normal thing in professional working environments - when it isn't, and would be seen as bullying or harrassment. Anyone with even the slightest human resources experience (and I have some of that, through my trade union work) knows the problems that the use of such language creates in most working environments, and the case work that can result. The exchange of (essentially obscene) text messages shown in one scene, for example, would be grist to the mill of a gross misconduct dismissal, particularly if it had been conducted over mobile phones provided by the employer. The second regard is its portrayal of HR specialists as being very ready users of this sort of language. If my own experience is anything to go by, they are just too much aware of the potential pitfalls (ie, being "let go" - but without notice and without any severance package!) to even think about taking the risk involved. Perhaps it is meant to be funny - but I didn't hear anyone laughing in the cinema as the text messages were shown on screen.

The sad thing is that all of this detracts from what in other respects is an interesting and thought provoking film. Like the same producer's earlier film, Juno, some interesting issues are explored - but probably lost on most of the cinema goers who will see the film. Casual sexual encounter is there to be contrasted with the permanent commitment of marriage; a young employee who moves town only to then be dropped by the boy friend she has followed; an individualistic self reliance (ulitmately, I think, portrayed in the film as not being satisfying) contrasted with the more settled network of a nuclear and extended family (but this is not portrayed as completely wholesome, with a counter-example of a marriage that has broken up and a groom who is just rescued - somewhat ironically by George Clooney's anti-hero character - from cold feet on the morning of his wedding). At one level the film works as a portrayal of the very ordinary human experiences that we, or people we know, might have in life these days. At another level, it should perhaps prompt us to reflect more on that experience, and come to an evaluation of it.

The outcome of the film itself leaves you with the feeling of not having come to an evaluation of all of these issues, with the exception of a feeling of complete let down when George Clooney's character achieves his ambition to achieve 10 million air miles - this on his return flight from finding out that his hotel fling is in fact a married woman with children and not the independent, available soul he had thought she was. This is the "somewhat lacking" ending to which the Thinking Faith reviewer refers.

Like Juno, the film contains some very well crafted and humorous exchanges. Some of the reactions of those who have just been sacked are quite moving (these, according to the USCCB review, were filmed using real workers who had recently been laid off), though others are obviously a bit over acted. An interesting aspect of the film that it is easy to overlook is the portrayal of the relationships between the different members of the family of George Clooney's character, briefly shown at the wedding of that character's sister.

I was not the only male in the cinema, but, females were in a decided majority. As Zero suggested during the final credits, perhaps it is a "girls film" with "gorgeous George" as the main attraction ...

Channel 4 at 9pm Sunday 26th September

.... and you will be able to watch a film called Juno. Zero and I saw this in the cinema in February 2008. Though being billed as a comedy (it is, with some very well crafted and funny exchanges), it is also a film with a serious side. The film shows a college student, her friends and her family, responding to an unexpected pregnancy. As a study of the way in which different "stakeholders" (sorry, can't think of a better word) react to unexpected pregnancy, this is a film that is worthy of study. There is, if I recall correctly, an interesting sound track, too.