Sunday, September 29, 2024

Got a Tip?

Review: ‘Up In The Air’

It’s a bit racist to label a subgenre of awards-friendly movies White People Trauma cinema in that it trivializes the universal emotions of these films. And yet, because the critical and awards cognoscenti is comprised mostly of white males, these are the films that end up being celebrated by people who seem, themselves, mirrored in each narrative. Even when they do pay lip service to outside worlds it’s secondary to the lead character’s issues.

This comes up again in another seemingly White People Trauma movie, awards-hopeful “Up In The Air,” which perfectly illustrates why it’s harder to make movies with a social conscience in today’s climate than it was in the less-connected era of Billy Wilder, or even Hal Ashby. To encapsulate the American experience, you have to take into account an audience’s modern cynicism, but you shouldn’t be feeding it, like Jason Reitman’s third film does.

“Up In The Air” concerns Ryan Bingham, played with smug self-assurance by George Clooney. He’s hired by airport companies to fly first class to different departments across the country, by now programmed to sympathetically fire people face to face. He’s almost supernaturally dedicated to his job, and to the superficial comforts of the open air. Of course, the film’s central irony is that he’s in danger of falling into unemployment himself. The company, in an attempt to cut costs, is shredding the human connection by using cam-to-cam communication for their downsizing needs, a move pioneered by wet-behind-the-ears newbie Natalie (Anna Kendrick). When Ryan is ordered to take Natalie out on the road, the two come to realize how they complement each other fairly well, both shoring up each other’s shortcomings in ways that carry the narrative forward and deepen the characterizations these two actors create.

Natalie, as played by the whipsmart Kendrick, actually ends up being the film’s most relatable and interesting character. Clooney begins things in a pretty sour mode, using corporate sarcasm to bed equally cynical traveler Alex, played with a steely career-woman drive by Vera Farmiga. As he (needlessly) narrates his travel details, his luggage concerns, and his indifferent, decidedly moviestar refusal to commit (and this is nothing if not George Clooney’s version of a Judd Apatow part), we are repulsed by this open air charlatan, taking his dog-and-pony firing show to thrive off the misery of others. It’s a credit to Clooney’s career that only a few shades, intonations and acting decisions make this shark far more deplorable than any character he’s played yet, and that includes the maddog serial killer of “From Dusk Till Dawn.”

Introducing Natalie opens the movie up after a weary, surface-level beginning. It’s difficult to understand why the film buries her introduction when she’s clearly the entry point for these white collar shenanigans. Not only is she surrounded by older white males, but she’s created a technology that is not only susceptible to her own human emotions, but also something capable of doing great harm. No doubt her naïve background trained her to believe this would be a profitable, exciting world, not one where she would be responsible for shepherding employees often twice her age to unemployment. Kendrick showcases the growing cracks in her façade, as she goes from being an unflappable businesswoman to someone who has to reassess her hopes and dreams in a rush.

And then, unfortunately, the film turns on her, and uses her as a mouthpiece for its themes. She goes from being a fully-formed character into one that is used primarily to serve the needs of our protagonist, and practically vanishes for the film‘s final half hour. Credit where credit’s due- this leads into a third act where Ryan tries to do the right thing for the people around him, only to discover, in some cases, that the rest of the world isn’t ready to slow down in order to appreciate his self-awakening. Without spoiling matters, it’s unfortunate to report that not only does the movie not pursue this further – it’s an American studio film, there needs to be SOME redemption – but Clooney can’t convincingly make you believe that this selfish, materialistic asshole has somehow learned how to treat people right. It’s a tough character arc, and Clooney doesn’t sell the sincere kindness as well as he does the smug, self-serving egotism.

When considering a movie’s impact, it’s probably best not to get hung up on outside factors, but its impossible to avoid this movie’s timeliness in the face of a rough economy. The film is littered with real life testimonials from people who have been fired in this climate, which feels a bit glib next to the narrative at hand. There’s no comparison to the stakes of the film, particularly for Ryan, who seems to have saved his earnings in lieu of job perks and, at this point, is probably well-loaded. The objective of the narrative seems to be that he has no family and no bills to worry about, which just makes one wonder why the testimonials are there in the first place. How are we supposed to feel about these fired individuals, who do have families and bills to worry about, as the film ends? The first actual onscreen firing, inappropriately enough, is of funnyman Zack Galifinakis, and it’s predictably played for broad “Simpsons”-y laughs.

Jason Reitman really fulfills what we’ve begun to notice as a common attribute of recent awards-friendly material- his direction is condescending, and even at some points a little stupid. Reitman is in love with the ironic close-ups, magnifying jokes and visual gags that are cheap and secondhand, and yet still are the focus of the frame, in what should be a mature story for and about adults. He also can’t resist having characters spout dialogue that underlines and italicizes the story and its themes. In the end, Ryan’s situation is so blindly obvious that a voiceover is superfluous. Further expository dialogue on this subject only exacerbates this problem, that he doesn’t trust us to pick up on Ryan’s empty life being filled with dull airports, baggage claims and unoccupied hotel rooms. Take out all the material talking down to the audience – Ryan’s sister emphasizing he doesn’t go out of his way to help, Ryan’s go-to metaphor of a piece of luggage representing your life – and this movie runs forty minutes long. Maybe that’s the problem with today’s empty awards-bait. Maybe these movies are just too damned long. [C]

About The Author

Related Articles

18 COMMENTS

  1. I actually loved this film.

    This film tackles The Midwest. Omaha- Nebraska, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Detroit. Cities that are dying in white and blue collar jobs because of outsourcing. The true suburban america. There are more strong "urban dramas" like Precious or strong illegal immigrant tales (like Sin Nombre) than films like these.

    I never felt sorry for Clooney, Vera, or Anna in this movie. I saw them as "messengers" between the mega corporations and these small white collar cities. It's a movie about firing people from their jobs.

    It's about the lack of connection we're creating between each other. About lack of energy to do anything other than a get rich quick scheme. About goals in life pertaining to video game scores and sex instead of love and family. We are more about corporations than society and that is scary.

    I didn't think the drama ever dipped far enough for me to ever feel sorry for Clooney as a character but on society itself. Because this movie can serve as a wake up call or simply a memo to what our future holds until people in the real workforce start to plan out how we might make this country great (instead of an illogical 3rd world mess)

  2. I saw this movie today, and was underwhelmed. It's not bad by any means, but it wasn't spectacular either. I gave it a 6 out of 10. Clooney acted like Clooney always does, and while it did the trick, I don't feel it's Oscar worthy. It's too bad as maybe the movie was so hyped up, the only was to go was down.

  3. "He’s hired by airport companies to fly first class to different departments across the country, by now programmed to sympathetically fire people face to face."

    -wrong

  4. I saw this movie at Telluride nearly 5 months ago and was sorta like "meh" and now it's been touted for all these awards. It's like Slumdog Millionare. A pretty mediocre movie that is going to the front.

  5. I can't believe how overrated this film is..I just watched it last night on a screener and thought it was so mediocre. Whoever is Reitman's publicist deserves an award for drumming up all the buzz for this film. George was so much better in Michael Clayton and Syriana.

  6. I liked this movie too but I saw it three weeks ago so I can't remember it 100% to compare it with this review. And Vera Farmiga's performance is so great that I didn't see the spoiler coming at me at all.

    Susan G. Cole did say something about how unrealistic the female characters are. But she doesn't need to worry because come to think of it the guys aren't that realistic neither.

    The soundtrack music was good and added to the tone that the movie was aiming for, but now I wonder what the movie would be like without it.

  7. Spot-on. Articulates a lot of what I felt.

    You did fail to point out that it's unlikely to catch on with audiences if only because it's such a downer- and a one that doesn't seem to understand how much of a downer it is, much less pitch itself in a manner that prepares audiences for it.

  8. Thanks for this review. While I do not agree with the comments about Kendrick's character, I thought she was actually quite annoying, I wholeheartedly agree with the awful direction. I felt like I was being hit over the head with expository crap that was totally unnecessary. I got it in the first five minutes. Either he thinks his audience is dumb or he's just a lazy writer/director. Was it really necessary for the voiceover to note his sister was the glue of the family and then cut to her glueing popsicle sticks together? I also thought the spoiler plot was manipulative (even though I read the script prior to seeing the film). She would never have gone to the wedding and acted like she did if she truly believed the words she spoke at the end. Just all around bad. Way too smug for my tastes.

  9. @ Anon. Some answers.

    1. Was this post written by the same person who earlier called the script "excellent," "soulful and humanist"?

    Nope. And a script is one thing. A movie is another.

    2. I also noted that the TIFF review, giving the film a B+ was "wholeheartedly endorse[d]" by The Playlist.

    Yeah, that's endorsed by me (i prolly woulda given it a B, but i wanted to be true to what that writer delivered).

    3. Was there a re-evaluation? I'm very much in agreement with this current review, but am curious why the attitude towards the film changed.

    No, Gabe, the writer of this piece had a different take on this film and i agreed with some of his concerns and criticisms and thought they were valid arguments against. I think he's being a TAD harsh. Yes, it's smug and aloof, but it's not without some humanity, but different writers obviously have different takes on things.

    I felt a second opinion was worthwhile.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Advertisement -spot_img
Stay Connected
0FansLike
19,300FollowersFollow
7,169FollowersFollow
0SubscribersSubscribe

Latest Articles