Elizabeth Banks on '17 Again': Did she, like, skip all her journalism classes?

Having seen her in everything from "40-Year-Old Virgin" to "Role Models" to "W," we all agree that Elizabeth Banks is a terrific comedienne, so terrific that we forgive her for being in "Meet Dave."

But judging from her new post on the Huffington Post, I'm guessing she wasn't a J-school major at the University of Pennsylvania. She's written an ardent essay arguing against the unfortunate message of the Zac Efron-starring "17 Again" -- i.e. that knocking up your high school sweetheart is A-OK. I actually think that I completely agree with her point, but her prose is so, well, over-caffeinated that as I continued reading I got so jittery that I somehow lost the thread of what she was talking about.

Here's an excerpt from the piece just to get you going. After explaining that the film does strike a cautionary note in a scene where Margaret Cho promotes the use of condoms, Banks writes:

Unfortunately, this scene would have had a lot more impact if Zac Efron's character not only acknowledged that sex can lead to babies but also that having a kid when you're 18 is hard, hard, hard. (Spoiler alert: he should know, see, 'cuz that's what got him into this crazy mess!) Also, he doesn't want his daughter (again, born when he was 18) to have sex with her high-school sweetheart yet his most powerful argument against it -- HAVING A KID WHEN YOU ARE JUST GRADUATING HIGH SCHOOL IS HARD -- I KNOW, I'M REALLY YOUR DAD! -- never comes up. He's just like, "fingers crossed!" Now, of course, the daughter does not have sex (totally unrealistically) and ends up lusting after Mr. Efron (totally realistically, who wouldn't) and it's creepy and weird. My point here (sorry, I was looking up "image Hunter Parrish" on Google and got off-track) is that this movie pretty much glamorizes teenage parenting. It basically says: Go for it! Have a kid when you're 18. Throw another one in for good measure right after and you'll get a nice house, deck and hammock included, your baby mama apparently won't need to work, your kids will eventually have iPods and get into Georgetown and the person you picked (when you were 17) is actually your soulmate! Don't worry if the condom breaks -- it's cool! It's totally worked out for Bristol, ya'll! (Is it me or is Levi cute?)

 If anyone can provide a Banks-to-English translation for these musings, please feel free to share.

Photo: Stephen Osman / Los Angeles Times

Comments

[Sandra]

I read her blog in its entirety, and I can't make sense of a lot of her stream-of-consciousness babblings. Like in the excerpt you've chosen for this piece, she rambles sarcastically quite a bit, yet doesn't recommend proactive approaches. The condom breaks? Okay, well then what? She once elsewhere mentioned that Bristol Palin is an example of how abstinence-only education doesn't work, but then mentions Bristol's predicament here again as an example of the "condom breaking." (If she didn't intend that parallel, she should have separated those thoughts more clearly. I also think she should lay off mentioning Bristol so much, but that's another matter.)

Sure, she can be cute in her roles, but I've often caught many contradictions in her statements from one interview/blog to another.

And if her point is the laxness of Hollywood in dealing with the exposure of teens to sexuality, that sure flies in the face of her MANY sexed-up roles, including movies which indirectly appealed to younger demographics with playful marketing.

[Pablo]

Why would she take journalism classes? So she could have Patrick Goldstein's job when he inevitably gets laid off like every other journalist in America?

I read her post yesterday before even realizing it was THAT Elizabeth Banks. It was pretty funny and wasn't hard to follow. Was it honestly that hard to read the article just because she used all caps for one sentence and used parentheses?

[Pablo]

And if it was too hard to figure out the point of this article, the first paragraph (I believe. Will you be able to understand me if I write in parentheses?) mentions she has an 11-year old daughter and that she's 30-something. A quick Google search shows that she had her child in her early 20's.

[Nappy]

The thing that makes it uninteligable is all those (sidetracked thoughts). If you ignore the comments in parenthesize its not so bad. I think she is trying to write like she talks. Unfortunately it just comes off jumbled and spacey. But, that could also be how she talks.

[robert harmon]

Well, I don't really think her prose is any worse than yours, my dear. As a matter of fact if anything this type of blogging proves that any moron can just put out a few lines (journalism has been providing scientific prove of that for a while) and pretend he/she is a "writer". Writing is not typing, nor publishing banal opinions or snobby smart-ass comments. That goes, I think, both for the lovely Ms.Bank for for your own inflated yet not very solid ego.

[Jim]

I've got no problem understanding what she's saying. Her comments can be summed up by saying the characters in this movie learn nothing -- no lessons learned. They repeat their mistakes and are allowed to be blissfully unaware of the consequences.

What I don't understand is why critiquing her blog is something worthy of the LA Times. Is this some twisted attempt to try to get a date with her?

[James Rowe]

A quick survey of Ms. Banks biography reveals that she graduated magna cum laude from an Ivy League school, the University of Pennsylvania.

I'm guessing that she's a pretty smart woman, and judging from the substance of her piece, she seems to be just that.

As for the stylistic aspect of the piece, relax Goldstein, it was a freaking blog. She wasn't writing an op ed for the Sunday LA Times. Now, whether the Huffington Post should have edited it more to your journalistic standards, that's a reasonable question.

But kudos to Banks for writing a thoughtful and entertaining blog post that at the same time was not preachy and self-serious. Something that various journalists could take a lesson from.

[harvey unmilk]

well come on, the LATimes can't spend ALL their time sniffing at obama's jockstrap. they gotta make fun of SOMEONE. and since those evil republicans aren't doing anything right now worth making fun of, let's make fun of the blonde bimbo from all those romcoms! yay!

[David Powell]

She's absolutely right.

Having kids at 18 is a hard, hard path.

Not need to "translate," she's 100 percent straight on.

[Adam]

I usually like Patrick Goldstein's writing very much, but I'm not sure what the point of this is. Taking a page off of someone's blog and ripping on them for not being the pinnacle of journalistic style? That's just bad. There's plenty more worth discussing in the entertainment industry, Mr. Goldstein. When last I checked, this wasn't a gossip blog.

Also, if Banks' point is that 17 Again sent the wrong message to its viewers, more power to her. More people should be holding Disney and their starlets accountable for their actions.