PDA

View Full Version : Jason Reitman: Up in the Air (2009)



Chris Knipp
12-12-2009, 11:53 PM
http://img710.imageshack.us/img710/8965/upintheair.jpg
RYAN (CLOONEY) SHOWS NATALIE (KENDRICK) HOW TO TRAVEL LIGHT

Jason Reitman: Up in the Air (2009)

Mixed messages

Jason Reitman (of Thank You for Smoking and Juno) has again done something smart and skewered the zeitgeist. Clooney, who has two hits and a miss out right now (this, Fantastic Mr. Fox, and the misfired Men Who Stare at Goats), is at the top of his game, and his performance here shows everything he can do; his limitations fit those of his character.

If this is a comedy, it's a depressing one. Even with a gloss of wit and perfect timing, Up in the Air delivers a pill that's hard to swallow. Its blend of cynicism and uplift is at best confusing. It's a puzzle picture.

Ryan Bingham (Clooney) is a slickly shallow man whose job is delivering corporate layoffs (obviously an action of supreme relevance during the current Great Recession, but hardly a new thing). He flies round the country and his greatest goal in life, a rather abstract one, is to earn ten million miles of flying time. He works for the blandly amoral Craig Gregory (Jason Bateman), whose staff zips around the country telling employees they're being let go and must clear out their desks, so their bosses don't have to have blood on their hands. If you have to have your dog killed, you take it to the vet's; this is the same thing.

While Ryan celebrates what he sees as an easy life full of enjoyable perks, this movie is full of pain. It richly details the reactions of devastated employees who have just learned they're fired, or tell the camera what it's like to be out of a job after 15 or 20 years with a house and a wife and kids. The sheer agony this experience is made clearer by the fact that actual fired persons have been used for many of these vignettes.

Ryan knows he is doing damage, and his focus is on being cool and businesslike about it. This could be compared to the job of the euphemistically titled Casualty Notification Officers in Moverman's The Messenger, who tell families their next of kin have died in Iraq, except that instead of the grim determination of Woody Harrelson and Ben Foster, Clooney's character goes about his work with brio, and seems to find life out of a suitcase hip and chic.

Ryan celebrates non-attachment (a value to Buddhists, but in their case not linked with cruelty). He even gives motivational lectures in which he advises success-seekers to get rid of unnecessary stuff in their lives, just as he pares down his necessities so he can travel anywhere with only a carry-on bag. In one version of the talk, he hypothetically fills a backpack with all the people in his life and then empties it out. He likes being up in the air; it's where he lives. He's even given up keeping a permanent apartment in Omaha, his company's headquarters.

Ryan is a teacher whose pupil learns a wiser lesson and who has to wise up himself. He meets his equal, Alex Goran (Vera Formiga, in a nicely modulated performance), in a bar and they become lovers. She explains to him later he should think of her as "you, with a vagina." We don't learn what she does, but she perfectly appreciates the prestige of Ryan's plastic cards that open doors or get him right on a flight or into a good rental car. She talks about the unknown size of his mileage as if it was the size of his penis, and "it must be huge." An iconic moment: their face-off after their first roll in the hay, laptop to laptop, finding a date when they're both free and in near enough airports to stage another rendezvous.

Danger of the same fate he's doling out comes to Ryan when Craig calls the entire staff back to Omaha for a meeting at which they learn they're going to be grounded. Craig has listened to a cold ambitious young women called Natalie (Ms. Kendrick), fresh out of business school, who's convinced him he can save tons of money by having his people do their hatchet jobs from headquarters via video hookup. Ryan is sent out with Natalie to test the new technology by firing people, first in the old way in person, then via video screen. He teaches her the elements of pro travel -- dumping unnecessary baggage, following Asians through security because they're organized and fast and wear slip-on shoes, and so on -- and then how to deal with angry, violent, or suicidal people they've just fired. That lesson she's not so ready for.

The irony is that being fired by an outsider is downright warm and human compared to having it done by somebody on a computer screen. Meanwhile Natalie's boyfriend fires her from their relationship via text message. She took this job and came to Omaha to be with him when she could have had a better job in San Francisco. Things get complicated with Alex for Ryan, and when Natalie meets Alex she challenges Ryan's complete unwillingness to accept commitment.

The movie gets preachy when Ryan and Alex attend his sister's wedding. Eventually the message is E.M. Forster's "only connect," and it's clear Ryan will become a very lonely guy if he doesn't reform. The sophistication of Alex and Ryan and their slick shared gamesmanship become hollow. They might be a couple out of the great age of Hollywood studio comedy -- except they aren't funny, and aren't meant to be. The trouble is, we only care about George Clooney when he's being a charmer or getting the better of someone and when his character is being shown up, he can seem shallow, tarnished. His gloss isn't invincible like Cary Grant's. What Reitman's doing here is complex and interesting, but the screenplay he co-wrote with Sheldon Turner is weak in various areas. The focus wavers too much between being about job loss and corporate wising up, and the movie's too sophisticated to wind up so reliant on cornpone wisdom.

tabuno
03-19-2010, 01:59 PM
This fusion of THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (2006) and LOST IN TRANSLATION (2003) resonates with power and vibrancy of the relevant Great Recession times we live in, albeit, burning brightly perhaps for only a while as one of the best movies of its time. Whether or not UP IN THE AIR (2009) can transcend into a timeless classic remains to be seen as its greatness may reside more in its provocative depiction of the terrible tragedy that contemporary society finds itself in today. As the Great Recession fades, however, it's possible that the greatness of this movie may also fade with it.

I found Clooney's character provokes both dislike and sympathy, a testament to either the script or Clooney's fine performance. There is not so much "cold" amibition as "cool" ambition or "naivete" that comes with youth and a college degree coming from Anna Kendrick's performance. The cinematography is crisp and natural looking, offering a much more intimate presentation of real life on screen that engages the audience.

It isn't so much that Clooney's character is "sent" out with Kendrick's character to test her new idea for terminating clients as much as a somewhat desperate attempt on Clooney's character part to insist that Kendrick's character hasn't even been out in the field with her ideas believing that her ideas are likely terrible and based just on some academic, out of touch "educated" youth. Overall, the editing, pacing, the script hold up well. The biggest weakness comes suprisingly at the end when another boss who conducts an interview would give so much credibility to George Clooney's character whom he apparently doesn't know.

cinemabon
03-25-2010, 08:07 AM
I saw this with wifey last week. I loved your spot-on review, Chris. I only have time for a brief note as I am heading out of town and had time to check the internet.

Rietman pulls an interesting stunt that Warren Beatty tried with "Reds." He interjects the film with "real people" who must relate on camera the experience of being fired. They look into the camera and emote. Whether these people are SEG equity or simple people off the street, what matters is we believe they have just been fired from a job. This lends a different level of reality to the film that goes beyond the plot or the characters and has emotional validity as shared "pain" if you will. If these are indeed real people who have been recently fired, then they did a very brave and painful thing by bearing their soul on camera. On the other hand, if Reitman manipulated us into believing they are real, he did a very good job, which lends credibility to his directing talent.

Since this film is now on DVD, I intend to buy it. I think it holds up to repeated viewings. It will be interesting to hear the director's commentary and find out how he filmed this most integral part (which you only partially addressed, Chris). The film opens and closes with these "actors." The message at this time is very clear. Firing employees, closing factories, shutting businesses, paring back, cutting the fat, trimming the sails... however you phrase it, involves real pain, real loss, and that seldom grabs a headline.

I'll be on the road and will not be able to see your reply for at least two weeks. Have a great passover and spring break everyone. Toodaloo!

Chris Knipp
03-25-2010, 01:18 PM
I saw this with wifey last week. I loved your spot-on review, Chris. Thanks. .


Rietman pulls an interesting stunt that Warren Beatty tried with "Reds." He interjects the film with "real people" who must relate on camera the experience of being fired. They look into the camera and emote. Whether these people are SEG equity or simple people off the street, what matters is we believe they have just been fired from a job. This lends a different level of reality to the film that goes beyond the plot or the characters and has emotional validity as shared "pain" if you will. If these are indeed real people who have been recently fired, then they did a very brave and painful thing by bearing their soul on camera. On the other hand, if Reitman manipulated us into believing they are real, he did a very good job, which lends credibility to his directing talent. You point to a troubling uncertainty. But anyway, if they are real people expressing their own direct sentiments, they are still being used within a fiction.

Chris Knipp
03-25-2010, 01:34 PM
Since this film is now on DVD, I intend to buy it. I think it holds up to repeated viewings. I wouldn't go that far; I've seen parts of the film again and there's a glibness, a patness, about many scenes that wears thin; besides, I just didn't find the film to be much fun to watch in the first place.
. It will be interesting to hear the director's commentary and find out how he filmed this most integral part (which you only partially addressed, Chris). Touché. You''re right. I didn't say anything about the "real people" shots. And they certainly should be a "most integral part" given the underlying theme of joblessness. But for me, there is a disconnect between the portrait of Ryan and the story of joblessness. The film never quite comes together; it reflects Ryan's own disconnect from what he is doing.

This may not matter, because certain scenes seem marked out as instant classics, like the one used in the trailer where Ryan shows Natalie how to go through security faster by getting behind Asians and avoiding old people.

We're meant to get caught up in this and find it amusing but as far as I can see it doesn't well survive e scrutiny: sometimes you just get caught behind old people and there aren't always Asians to get behind, or the whole line may be slow anyway. Who cares? Or is that the point -- that Ryan's little finesses are utterly pointless? And yet we're also meant to admire Ryan in some sense. Aren't we? He's George Clooney, after all, the most admired actor on the planet. This is rather like Juno, whose heroine was really pretty stupid, a teenage girl saddled with a geeky boy's baby, but still meant to be seen as cool because of her independent big-mouthed stance toward life.