{"id":1712,"date":"2013-03-02T18:18:30","date_gmt":"2013-03-02T18:18:30","guid":{"rendered":"\/?p=1712"},"modified":"2019-02-14T17:08:04","modified_gmt":"2019-02-14T17:08:04","slug":"don-jon-2013","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/?p=1712","title":{"rendered":"Don Jon, 2013"},"content":{"rendered":"

Plot <\/strong>New Jersey, Present day. Twentysomething bartender Jon enjoys masturbating over online pornography, which he finds more satisfying than sex with the women he picks up while out on the town.\u00a0 When the attractive Barbara gives him the brush-off, however, it makes him determined to pursue her.\u00a0 The two start dating, and it becomes obvious that Barbara is interested in serious commitment, her values moulded by social norms and Hollywood romance.\u00a0 Restraining his ardour, she only sleeps with Jon after he starts taking computer evening classes, but is horrified when she subsequently catches him watching porn on his laptop.\u00a0 He mollifies her by agreeing never to look at it again, and their relationship proceeds over the following months until she checks his browser history, realises he’s still visiting porn sites and walks out.\u00a0 He can\u2019t bear to reveal the break-up to his parents or friends, though in the meantime he has befriended classmate Esther, an unconventional older woman who\u2019s emotionally volatile yet sexually accommodating.\u00a0 Esther makes Jon confront his porn addiction, while her revelation that she lost her husband and son brings them closer and helps him connect emotional intimacy with sexuality for the first time.\u00a0 When Jon finally tells his family about Barbara, his sister\u2019s response that she was controlling him strikes a chord.\u00a0 Jon walks away from a lunch date with Barbara. His relationship with Esther develops day by day (adapted from Johnston 73).<\/p>\n

Film Note<\/strong> While (500) Days of Summer <\/em>(2009) used quirk and whimsy to explore the changing cultural values of modern men and women, Joseph Gordon-Levitt\u2019s directorial debut uses porn.\u00a0 Don Jon<\/em> is closely tied to the contemporary workings of independent filmmaking, wherein its production, marketing, and distribution allude to new kinds of digital strategies for the industry. The film acts as a contemporary reworking of the contemporary romantic comedy, utilising the conventions of the genre to explore contemporary relationships. With the prominence of proud feminist Gordon-Levitt, Don Jon <\/em>attempts to capture masculinity in the digital age.<\/p>\n

Indiewood progression <\/strong>Don Jon<\/em> brings together an amalgamation of independent production companies, including the first appearance from Gordon-Levitt\u2019s own HitRecord, the more established Voltage Pictures and recent mainstream Hollywood breakthrough, Ram Bergman Productions. The film was sold at Sundance Film Festival to Relativity for $4m, alongside a $25m Prints and Advertising commitment. Robert Marich argues that independent producers \u201ccan\u2019t gallop into the theatrical market because of a lack of funds\u201d (271). For Don <\/em>Jon<\/em><\/span> to command such an expensive P&A commitment, however, suggests that Relativity thought the film would be a success. Don Jon <\/em>worked out profitably, and can be deemed a model of how future studio releases might work.<\/p>\n

Zachary Wigon examines the way in which the notion of \u201cscalability\u201d functions in Hollywood. Wigon views films like Don Jon<\/em>, or the equally financially successful The Way, Way Back <\/em>(2013), as exemples of a \u201cscalable business model ripe for utilisation within a volume distribution strategy.\u201d Wigon argues that if films continue \u201creasonable\u201d acquisition prices, then why should Hollywood \u201cbother to make smaller pictures for [\u2026] $15-30m when they can buy them at festivals for significantly less?\u201d It is financially worthwhile to purchase a cost-effective product with no production risks. Even if a number of these films were not economically successful, the loss would still not be detrimental and the strategy would eventually generate higher profits over a shorter period of time. Films like Don Jon <\/em>or The Way, Way Back <\/em>offer distribution companies easier roads to success, existing as finished films as opposed to initial scripts, and including recognisable casts, palatable story lines and noticeable tropes.<\/p>\n

Don Jon <\/em>was particularly successful in its cost-efficient marketing, focusing on its target audience and choosing their marketing platforms wisely. The film utilised online marketing techniques, creating a Twitter persona for the eponymous Jon, using Reddit Ask Me Anythings (AMAs) and, most notably, advertising through PornHub.\u00a0Advertising through porn sites was also used for 21 and Over<\/em> (2013) and the anthology comedy Movie 43 <\/em>(2013), both also distributed by Relativity. Corey Price, vice president of PornHub, states that \u201cthe cost of advertising on adult traffic is significantly lower than on big mainstream sites\u201d such as Google, Facebook or Twitter, and that \u201cPornHub alone attracts 60 million unique visitors a day\u201d, reaching a total of 21.2 billion visits in 2015 (qtd in Marshall). PornHub agreed to not only take part in the film but also to help the filmmakers \u201cfind adult clips to use in the movie from our content partners like Brazzers, Mofos, Digital Playground and Twistys\u201d (Price qtd in Suebsaeng).<\/p>\n

For more liberal films, adult sites offer access to a large, online audience and, specifically for Don Jon<\/em>, a cheap database of content and collaborators. Advertising through these sites can be effective in gaining a response, garnering some form of media attention or controversy amongst more conservative outlets. There may also be a psychological and physiological advantage in triggering a feeling of arousal whilst advertising on adult sites, stimulating either a heightened attentiveness, becoming fixed in the viewer\u2019s mind, or generating some form of attachment. As Erik du Plessis (xii) argues, advertising seeks to release dopamine because the related emotional attention ensures continued engagement with the product. The release of the pleasure-inducing hormone dopamine (thanks to sexual arousal) at the same time as the viewer is made aware of the film, means that it is reasonable to assume that the film might become associated with feelings of intense joy.<\/p>\n

Don Jon <\/em>is also connected to the digital through its production and distribution. The film was co-produced by Gordon-Levitt\u2019s own company, HitRecord, interlinked with the homonymous open-collaborative website, www.hitrecord.org.\u00a0 This website is a space for creatives to upload their work, already with the consent for the community to remix and reuse it; if Gordon-Levitt takes notice of a certain project, he will produce it on a larger scale, splitting the profits equally between HitRecord and the contributing artist. Although Don Jon<\/em><\/span> is credited as a HitRecord production, it was not directly created by the site\u2019s collaborators.\u00a0 However, Gordon-Levitt has stated in the description of a youtube video about the film that he \u201ccould not have done [Don Jon<\/em><\/span>] without all of the experience [\u2026] on hitRECord\u201d, and will use the success of the film to aid in \u201cfuture endeavors as a production company\u201d (2013).<\/p>\n

Meanwhile, Don Jon<\/em>\u2019<\/em>s <\/em>distributor, Relativity Media, signed a five-year agreement in 2010 whereby their films would be distributed via Netflix’s online streaming service. The contract marked the first time that theatrical feature films were streamed so quickly after their theatrical release, unlike pay TV agreements with traditional broadcasters like HBO or Showtime. With Hollywood buying fewer independent films at festivals, sites like Netflix or Amazon seem to be changing the patterns of film releasing. In 2016, however, Relativity Media sued Netflix for in excess of $1.5bn, claiming that \u201cNetflix breached its agreement to stream the mini-studio\u2019s films and did so much damage that it undermined Relativity\u2019s financial underpinnings\u201d (Rainey). Although Don Jon <\/em>reflects a success in the possible paradigm shift towards the digital, the 2016 Relativity bankruptcy appears to signify an unease between traditional release and digital intervention.<\/p>\n

\u201c<\/strong>They give awards for porn too<\/strong>\u201d<\/strong> The film\u2019s advertisements on PornHub in comparison to its televised trailers gave their respective audiences different expectations. Whereas the television adverts often portrayed the film as a traditional romance-comedy, placing significance on Jon and Barbara\u2019s relationship, the adverts on PornHub emphasised Scarlett Johansson\u2019s Barbara and her sex appeal, highlighting scenes in which she rubs her body against Jon to seduce him. Don Jon<\/em> met neither of these audience\u2019s expectations. Similar to Gordon-Levitt\u2019s role in (500) Days of Summer<\/em>, the characters and story in Don Jon<\/em> counter the classic tropes of the romance genre. When asked in the film\u2019s Reddit AMA, Gordon-Levitt acknowledged the scope of Don Jon<\/em>\u2019s marketing, proclaiming \u201cwe\u2019re also advertising on \u2018chick flick\u2019 stuff and on the NFL. All of which are media that is featured in Don Jon<\/em>. It’s a movie about media culture, it should be in the media.\u201d<\/p>\n

Don Jon<\/em> looks at the surface of relationships, making an overt comparison between romance films and pornography, exploring the similarity of objectifying people in both mediums. As Gordon-Levitt states, \u201cthe pornography aspect will grab people’s attention [\u2026] but it’s not what the movie is about, no more than another film I was in, 50\/50 <\/em>[2011],<\/em> about a cancer sufferer, was actually about cancer\u201d (qtd in Jones). The film does not condone pornography and instead utilises its artistic style to break down the illusion in both the romance genre and pornography, making the two synonymous. The film\u2019s repeated soundtrack, with a harmonious harp, twinkling bells and a cumbersome beat culminate in a Hollywood orchestral melody with a club rhythm. Towards the end of the opening montage, the music becomes distorted and the stark, black and white title \u201cDon Jon\u201d begins to lose focus and contort; evoking either a computer screen glitch or a film reel flicker.<\/p>\n

The first image of Jon shows him alone in his room, explaining his process of watching porn. The signature Apple start-up sound triggers a closeup of Jon\u2019s face, illuminated by the computer screen. This image is repeated later when Jon and Barbara go the cinema. An extreme closeup of Barbara shows her smiling, tear stained face \u2013 as in shots of Jon when he watches porn, she is shown as overcome with pleasurable emotion, while quickly intercut images of the romance (or, in Jon\u2019s case, the porn) highlight the intensity of these images. Jon explains his disdain for such films in voice-over, complaining that he \u201cmust be missing something\u201d he lists the tropes of the film, and finally notes: \u201ceveryone knows it\u2019s fake, but they watch it like it\u2019s real fucking life.\u201d When the couple come out of the screening, Barbara wistfully sums up the film\u2019s meaning for her: \u201che gave up everything for her, it was just meant to be.\u201d This is the epitome of Barbara\u2019s relationship expectations: like Jon\u2019s addiction to pornography, it is one-sided and subservient. Don Jon <\/em>emphasises the distortion of reality caused through media perception, as these closeup shots seem to foreground a sense of narcissistic regression where the only person important in Jon or Barbara’s relationship is themselves, a regression prompted by the gendered media forms of internet pornography and cinematic romance respectively.<\/p>\n

Jon doesn\u2019t give up pornography for Barbara. Yet, he does so for Julianne Moore\u2019s Esther. The two female protagonists in Don Jon <\/em>are significant in understanding how the film attempts to counter classic tropes of the romance genre. With Don Jon <\/em>being from a male perspective, however, the exploration of female objectification can be problematic. Tamar Jeffers McDonald notes Hollywood\u2019s \u201cre-gendering\u201d of the romantic comedy, terming masculinised rom-coms \u201chomme-coms\u201d, films which place \u201cemphasis on the importance of sex and the body in all its messiness\u201d (148). Although focused on males, there is still a need to question how females are portrayed in homme-coms. Don Jon<\/em>, while fully formulating the growth and development in Gordon-Levitt\u2019s character, leaves Barbara one dimensional. It can be argued that Barbara\u2019s lack of complexity follows the nature of a typical homme-com. Gordon-Levitt explains the choice to use Johansson specifically, with her status being recognised more so due to her beauty rather than talent, acting as a \u201cpowerful presence [\u2026] because she’s an acute example of what the movie’s about.\u201d Yet, if the film claims to be a commentary on the media-induced psyche, by not allowing time for Barbara to go through any transformation, in itself the film is too reliant on generic tropes.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, the redeeming nature of Moore\u2019s role is particularly significant. Esther, at a glance, fits film critic Nathan Rabin\u2019s term \u201cManic Pixie Dream Girl\u201d. Rabin defines this as a character \u201cthat exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life and its infinite mysteries and adventures.\u201d Esther does appear to serve Jon, helping him pursue his own happiness and essentially fixing him of his addiction. Arguably, however, this description is too simplistic. Esther exists beyond Jon\u2019s hardship, she is not the \u201cpsychotically chipper\u201d woman that Rabin deems Kirsten Dunst\u2019s character in Elizabethtown <\/em>(2005). Moore\u2019s character is often more vulnerable than Jon himself, and is shown to be in the process of dealing with the loss of her husband and son, having an emotional breakdown at her night class and possibly using marijuana as a coping mechanism. Esther is not a fantastical character. As Don Jon<\/em>\u2019s score producer Nathan Johnson explains, \u201cwhen Esther enters the movie, everything gets more real [\u2026] the camera goes handheld,\u201d her scenes are \u201creally raw, really stripped down.\u201d Don Jon <\/em>counters the Manic Pixie Dream Girl as Jon and Esther help each other. Jon learns there is more to a woman than her body and Esther learns how to understand her feelings.<\/p>\n

The film doesn\u2019t provide the Hollywood ending in the most typical sense. In the end montage, Jon and Esther enjoy one another\u2019s company. Jon admits he loves Esther but \u201cnot I love her, I want to marry her. I\u2019m definitely not thinking about that shit.\u201d Esther feels the same: she is shown visibly breaking down on the street\u2019s steps, and Jon continues \u201cshe\u2019s not either. She can\u2019t.\u201d For Moore, the film \u201cdoesn\u2019t assume that there\u2019s a \u2018happily ever after\u2019 [\u2026], it just says, \u2018let\u2019s see what happens.\u2019 This is what it is for now [\u2026]. This is just what\u2019s happening\u201d (qtd in Arbeiter). Don Jon <\/em>doesn\u2019t give the audience an absolute to the future of Jon and Esther\u2019s relationship. Instead, the film is grounded in immediacy, providing an open and honest dialogue about unrealistic mythologising and media entrapment in modern day relationships.<\/p>\n

Digital corruption <\/strong>Julianne Moore\u2019s significance also extends to her role in an earlier Hollywood film about pornography, Boogie Nights <\/em>(1997). Don Jon <\/em>can be seen referencing Paul Thomas Anderson\u2019s breakout film through Moore herself, the theme of pornography, and a turning-point for Jon: namely his immersive car karaoke moment, singing Boogie Nights<\/em>\u2019 Mark Wahlberg\u2019s song \u201cGood Vibrations\u201d. Don Jon<\/em>\u2019s reference to Boogie Nights <\/em>is important in the exploration of gender and masculinity. As Linda Williams observes, films that align themselves with \u201cpornography as a genre want to be about sex. On close inspection, however, it always proves to be more about gender\u201d (267).<\/p>\n

Don Jon <\/em>is different to previous films that explore masculinity in the context of pornography, such as The Girl Next Door<\/em> (2004) or Zack and Miri Make a Porno <\/em>(2008), due to the significance of the digital. Pornography has shifted from Playboy magazines and the camcorder era (including the likes of the fictionalised 1970s Danish erotica that Esther gives Jon), and is now monopolised by the MTV aesthetic. The addition of the internet unifies an immediate gratification of the digital era with masculine entitlement. As Dargis explains, the film is \u201cmostly interested in what it means to be a feeling, thinking man in a world in which many of the old certainties have disappeared.\u201d Don Jon<\/em> recapitulates an existing masculinist culture and attempts to critique it. This digital corruption of masculinity arguably manifests in two ways: how Jon struggles to communicate with himself and how he struggles to communicate with others.<\/p>\n

Jon\u2019s self image is defined by the \u201cfew things\u201d he \u201creally cares about in life\u201d, including his \u201cbody, pad, ride, family, church, boys, girls, and porn\u201d \u2013 the epitome of hegemonic masculinity. Jon doesn\u2019t really have a connection to any of these outlets, however, and instead his masculinity is built on the fragility of the aesthetic. In the use of a repeated shot of the isolated Jon sauntering down the gym corridor and past the basketball court, his \u201cbody\u201d becomes purely mechanical; also, Jon is noticeably obsessed with surface cleanliness in his \u201cpad\u201d, captured in his multiple attempts to remake his bed or clean the mirror; finally, whilst Jon diligently confesses every week in \u201cchurch\u201d, these confessions come to be depthless as he unquestionably accepts his Hail Marys.<\/p>\n

While exploration into \u201cthe crisis theme\u201d of masculinity has been \u201cpopular since at least the 1990s, perhaps due to the softer presidency of Bill Clinton and the increasing feminisation of men in the American home\u201d (Shary 7), it is Don Jon<\/em>\u2019s incorporation of the digital that further cultivates an anxiety surrounding Jon and his self image. Jon\u2019s compulsive behaviour is often depicted after he watches porn, indicating that his compulsions become symptomatic of his addiction. For Jon, watching pornography is a means to assert a sense of masculine control. The masterful \u201cDon\u201d becomes dissatisfied with the usual macho hooks ups: as he remarks \u201ccondoms are terrible [\u2026] but you gotta wear one, \u2018cause, unlike porn, real pussy can kill you\u201d and \u201cmissionary is the worst position in all of fucking.\u201d The character even states \u201creal pussy’s good, but I\u2019m sorry, it\u2019s not as good as porn\u201d, capturing his disassociation from reality.<\/p>\n

A masculinised digital corruption can be seen as extending beyond Jon\u2019s infatuation for pornography or Barbara\u2019s addiction to Hollywood romance films. The hyper-masculinised media culture emanates into the traditional family structure. The Martello family in Don Jon <\/em>fit the conventional roles of a nuclear Italian-American family. Jon Sr. bears the stereotypical white vest and gold chain, while Jon\u2019s mother, Angela, is either seen in the kitchen or talking at lengths about marriage. Jon\u2019s sister, Monica, has only one line in the film. Don Jon <\/em>provides signifiers from the beginning that media culture permeates throughout the Martello family. Through Jon\u2019s early introduction of \u201cfamily\u201d, the Martellos are seen in their home setting up a family photo. The traditional wood-panelled room, however, is overwhelmed by the monstrous television screen airing an American football game; Monica\u2019s eyes, meanwhile, are glued to her mobile phone.<\/p>\n

Later, media culture appears to cause discomfort, underlining Dargis\u2019 suggestion that the film presents \u201ca world in which many of the old certainties have disappeared.\u201d At one point, an ignorance of the digital causes embarrassment and a questioning of Jon Sr.\u2019s patriarchal role. As Shary argues, \u201cwhile the crisis theme has perhaps run its course [in Hollywood] there remained a certain coherence around issues of patriarchy, especially in relation to fatherhood and family\u201d (9). The family are gathered around the dining table, Jon Sr.\u2019s football game taking centre stage. Jon attempts to explain TiVo to his father, to enable him to pause and replay his football games. Jon Sr. pretends to understand his son, holding onto his pride as he tries to divert Jon\u2019s attention by talking about the game itself. Jon questions his father \u201cyou seriously never heard of that?\u201d, and Jon Sr. aggressively retorts \u201cYes! I’ve heard of it, Jesus fucking \u2013 there! Look, his foot’s on the line!\u201d The digital becomes another force to equate masculinity with conformity, becoming a \u201cvisual spectacle\u201d as the dinner table dynamic becomes broken (Shary 302).<\/p>\n

Similarly to Her <\/em>(2013), in which the male protagonist has easy, digital access to a seductive female presence (also played by Scarlett Johansson), Don Jon <\/em>shows the digital suffocation of pornography\u00a0and the internet\u2019s place in habitual routine and addition. In Her<\/em>, Theodore only needs to touch an earpiece and Samantha is present. Likewise, the aforementioned repetitive Apple start-up noise in Don Jon <\/em>signifies how quickly Jon can access pornography. The immediate gratification of the digital nurtures addiction, as this character\u2019s compulsions become habits. The fact that Jon can access porn on his phone adheres to the idea that the \u201cprivatisation of fantasy mediated by personalised digital devices\u201d formulates a \u201cworld of flat, regenerated meanings\u201d (Kunkle 13). Similar to the advertisement of a half nude model selling burgers during one of the Martello family dinners, the exposure of the hyper-masculine becomes normalised.<\/p>\n

Towards the end of Don Jon<\/em>, however, the audience are offered a resolution into the impact of changing routine. Jon begins to question the priest of his Lord’s Prayers and Hail Mary\u2019s, he sings along to Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch, and he chooses to interact with fellow gym goers and play basketball. Don Jon<\/em>, though appearing as a typical Hollywood romance, simultaneously critiques it. The film aims to diverge from the norm and regain control of human connection in a world of easy access digital pleasures.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

References <\/strong><\/p>\n

Arbeiter, Michael. \u201cJulianne Moore talks subverting the Rom-com genre in \u2018Don Jon.\u2019\u201d Hollywood.com, <\/em>n.d. Web. 5 December 2016.<\/p>\n

Dargis, Manohla. \u201cJoseph Gordon-Levitt stars in \u2018Don Jon.\u2019\u201d The New York Times<\/em>, 26 September 2013. Web. 11 December 2016.<\/p>\n

Gordon-Levitt, Joseph. \u201cJoseph Gordon-Levitt. Are we RECording? Ask me anything\u2026\u201d Reddit.com<\/em>, n.d. Web. 4 December 2016<\/p>\n

Gordon-Levitt, Joseph. \u201cRE: Don Jon Deal.\u201d Hitrecord.org<\/em>, 22 January 2013. Web. 3 December 2016.<\/p>\n

Jeffers McDonald, Tamar. \u201cHomme-com: Engendering Change in Contemporary Romantic Comedy.\u201d In Falling in <\/em>Love again: Romantic Comedy in Contemporary Cinema<\/em>. Ed Stacey Abbott and Deborah Jermyn. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009: 146\u2013159. Print.<\/p>\n

Johnson, Nathan. \u201cDon Jon: Themes & Variations.\u201d Vimeo.com<\/em>, n.d. Web. 5 December 2016<\/p>\n

Johnston, Trevor. \u201cReview: Don Jon<\/em>.\u201d Sight and Sound<\/em>, 23.12 (December 2013): 72-73. Print.<\/p>\n

Jones, Emma. \u201cJoseph Gordon-Levitt: \u2018Don Jon is not about porn.\u2019\u201d BBC<\/em>, 15 November 2013. Web. 3 November 2016.<\/p>\n

Kunkle, Sheila. Cinematic Cuts: Theorizing Film E<\/em>ndings<\/em>. <\/em>New York: <\/span><\/i>State University of New York Press, 2016. Print.<\/p>\n

Marich, Robert. Marketing to M<\/em>oviegoers: A <\/em>Handbook of Strategies and Tactics. <\/em>New York: Southern Illinois University Press, 2013. Print.<\/p>\n

Marshall, Jack. \u201cHow One Adult Site Attracts Mainstream Advertisers.\u201d Digiday.com<\/em>, 7 October 2013. Web. 3 November 2016.<\/p>\n

du Plessis, Erik. The Branded Mind: What Neuroscience Really Tells Us About the Puzzle of the Brain and the Brand<\/em>. London, Philadelphia and New Delhi: Kogan Page, 2011. Print.<\/p>\n

Rabin, Nathan. \u201cThe Bataan Death March of Whimsy Case File #1: Elizabethtown.\u201d AVClub.com<\/em>, 25 January 2007. Web. 11 December 2016.<\/p>\n

Rainey, James. \u201cRelativity Media Sues, Blaming Its Struggles on Netflix.\u201d Variety.com<\/em>, 18 October 2016. Web. 3 December 2016.<\/p>\n

Shary, Timothy. Millennial <\/em>Masculinity: Men in Contemporary American C<\/em>inema<\/em>. Wayne State University Press, 2013. Print.<\/p>\n

Suebsaeng, Asawin. \u201cHow One of the Biggest Porn Websites Helped Joseph Gordon-Levitt Make \u2018Don Jon.\u2019\u201d Motherjones.com<\/em>, 27 September 2013. Web. 2 December 2016.<\/p>\n

Wigon, Zachary. \u201cRacking focus: \u2018Don Jon\u2019 and New Distribution Strategies.\u201d Tribecafilm.com<\/em>, 5 November 2013. Web. 3 November 2016.<\/p>\n

Williams, Linda. Hard core: Power, Pleasure, and the <\/em>\u2018<\/em>Frenzy of the Visible<\/em>\u2019<\/em>. <\/em>London: Harper Collins Publishers, 1999. Print.<\/p>\n

Written by Katy Thompson\u00a0(2016<\/strong>); edited by Nick Jones (2017), Queen Mary, University of London<\/strong><\/p>\n

This article may be used free of charge. Selling without prior written consent prohibited. Please obtain permission before redistributing. In all cases this notice must remain intact.<\/p>\n

Copyright \u00a9 2017 Katy Thompson\/Mapping Contemporary Cinema<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Production Companies: Voltage Pictures, HitRecord Films, Ram Bergman Productions
\nDistribution: Relativity Media
\nDirector: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
\nProducers: Ram Bergman, Jeff Franks, Bruce Wayne Gillies, Nikos Karamigios
\nExecutive Producers: Nicolas Chartier, Ryan Kavanaugh, Tucker Tooley
\nScreenplay: Joseph Gordon-Levitt
\nCinematography: Thomas Kloss
\nEditor: Lauren Zuckerman
\nMusic: Nathan Johnson
\nCast: Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Jon), Scarlett Johansson (Barbara), Julianne Moore (Esther), Tony Danza (Jon Sr.), Glenne Headly (Angela), Brie Larson (Monica)
\nRunning Time: 90 mins.
\nClassification: Rated R by the MPAA for strong graphic sexual material, nudity, language and some drug use.
\nBox-office Gross: Domestic $24m\/Worldwide $41m
\nTagline: Everyone loves a happy ending Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":1713,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[155,220,73,191,221,21,11],"class_list":["post-1712","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-film-note","tag-155","tag-digital-culture","tag-gender","tag-indiewood","tag-pornography","tag-romantic-comedy","tag-us"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1712","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1712"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1712\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1735,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1712\/revisions\/1735"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1713"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1712"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1712"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mcc.sllf.qmul.ac.uk\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1712"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}