Movie Takes
Down With Up in the Air
The most overrated movie of the year.
Film critics are so easy to please. You just have to give them a high concept, a bit of politically correct cynicism about the evils of “capitalism” or the “system” or the armed forces or the government security apparatus, add a couple of hip, attractive and sexually adventurous people with a vulnerability or two between them, some nostalgia about families or small-town America, finish it all with an unhappy but ambiguous ending and, voilà, the next thing you know you find your movie on their list of the year’s ten best. You may even find that the hype generated by the critical golden opinions garnered in this way will result in your movie’s pulling down as much as a tenth or so of the revenue of some vacuous, high-tech, kid-pleasing extravaganza like Avatar. At any rate, this is the only explanation I can find for the enthusiasm which so many of my critical brethren have lavished on Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air.
The high concept in this movie, adapted by Mr. Reitman and Sheldon Turner from a novel by Walter Kirn, is that of a man who claims to like being homeless — or virtually homeless — because his constant traveling is bringing him ever closer to the object of his adoration, which is the élite status that comes with 10 million frequent flyer miles on American Airlines. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) proudly tells us in voiceover — always an indicator of a film-maker’s going for the gold of self-conscious profundity — that in the last year he has spent 322 days on the road and a mere “43 miserable days at home.” Every so often his peripatetic path crosses with that of Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga), a woman who travels almost as much as he does, and they have a fantastically satisfying coital encounter in some hotel room. “Just think of me as yourself, only with a vagina.” she says to him, wittily.
Ryan is Up in the Air so much because his job calls for him to fly around the country for a company to which other companies have outsourced the distasteful task of laying off their employees, and the late recession (you may have heard about it) fills the role of the peg on which that booming business is suspended. So there’s capitalism getting it in the neck as usual: the promise of Woody Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land” as sung by Sharon Jones and the Dap Kings over the opening credits is thus fulfilled. So far so good. But the plot is of as little interest to the filmmakers as it generally is these days. We, along with Ryan’s company, are introduced to whiz kid Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), just out of Cornell, who thinks she can do Ryan’s job and that of the other terminators remotely, by streaming video over the Internet. Ryan is supposed to be taking her on yet another road trip to show her how the job is being done at the moment and, presumably, to prepare the way for his own return to earth.
Now, the rationale of Ryan’s company is that there is a market for people who specialize in extremely difficult face-to-face encounters to subcontract their services out to those who are squeamish about such encounters. If the specialists then turn around and say they’re switching over to firing people via the Internet, then they have undermined the whole foundation not just of the company but of the business. How many of those that, as yet another of Ryan’s voiceovers puts it, “don’t have the balls” for a personal interview of this sort, are going to pay conscience money to someone as cowardly as they are? Yet the absurdity of Miss Keener’s business innovation never seems to occur to anyone, not even those who, like Ryan, are opposed to it.
The movie is too eager to put Ryan and Natalie together as a way of almost, but not quite, bringing about a crisis in Ryan’s personal life to reflect that the story of how this is supposed to come about is as fantastical as everything else about it.
And this major structural fault is just one of the things that is wrong with the movie. The idea of a man who has managed to pass his life avoiding all normal human ties feeling a sentimental sense of loyalty to a frequent-flyer program has strong comic potentialities of which little or nothing has been made. This and other comic, or tragicomic, slam-dunks are simply missed. “People do strange s*** when they get fired,” one of Ryan’s voiceovers tells us. Yet, oddly, hardly anyone does in this picture. There’s another opportunity lost. Why wouldn’t they do strange s***? Perhaps it is in order to make Mr Clooney’s character come off looking better than he would if they did do strange s***.
Similarly, when Ryan tells us confidently of one of his terminees, Steve (Zach Galifianakis), that “I will never see Steve again,” he doesn’t! What’s up with that? The inevitable comic encounter with someone our hero never expected to meet in a normal human situation proves evitable after all. Steve simply disappears from the film, along with all but one of the other human rejects he has had to fire with a little motivational speech along the way. Has Mr. Reitman forgotten them? Are their stories just window dressing in Ryan Bingham’s life for him as well as for Ryan himself. About that, I have no ideas at all. And then there is the dialogue. Here is what I guess is meant to sound like some witty, Wildean banter between Ryan and his boss (Jason Bateman) on the phone together.
Boss: “I just had my first crap in two weeks.”
Ryan: “That’s the sound of me hanging up on you.”
Boss: “Great. I love that sound.”
Likewise, in the small-town nostalgia bit, when Ryan takes Alex to his hometown in northern Wisconsin in the dead of winter for his sister’s wedding, he is suddenly called upon to attend to the bridegroom, Jim (Danny McBride), who has cold feet not due to the weather. “I tell people how to avoid commitment,” Ryan protests, but this seems to make no difference to anyone. His powers of persuasion are therefore presumably taxed to the uttermost with his advice to Jim that “life is better with company. Everybody needs a co-pilot.” This not only does the trick so far as re-routing Jim down the aisle is concerned, but it makes our hero begin to think that maybe, just maybe, he needs a co-pilot of his own. Bet you couldn’t see that one coming. But don’t worry. Not to engage in spoilers or anything, but in the end Ryan remains the cool, airborne Lothario he has always been. After all, that’s how the critics want him to be.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (63) | Leave a comment
More Articles From Movie Takes
http://spectator.org/archives/2010/01/06/down-with-up-in-the-air
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Wizards and Weapons
- Hannah and Her Friends
- A President Loses His Power
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 1.6.10 @ 7:22AM
Hollywood is still making movies for the gang from the 1960 whose fondest memory is the day they wee-weed in the wastebasket of the president of their university ... and who longed to be able to make movies in which people had sex a lot and yelled F*** and S*** at least once per minute.
Hasnt anybody told them that most of us grew up 40 years ago and we are TIRED of their viewpoint?
Fortunately the classic movies are still widely available and the DVDs cost less than one attendance at one of these filthy disappointments.
Melvin| 1.6.10 @ 7:29AM
Was E.T. a Republican or Democrat?
Max| 1.6.10 @ 10:23AM
Oh please. What he's talking about are the people (usually boomers, usually in academia) who, to this day, think "Animal House" and "The Blues Brothers" are on par with "Ghandi" and "Stalag 17" and, just for comedy relief, "Some Like It Hot."
Margie| 1.6.10 @ 3:07PM
He was an illegal alien who came here without a passport and tried taking jobs from hardworking Americans.. he had no business in this country and er I mean on this planet and so had no RIGHT to register as a voter in either party!
Brat Magursky| 1.6.10 @ 8:18AM
Melvin...silly question...E.T. was democrat simply because it came from a strange planet in a galaxy far far away...the problem is figuring out how to get it back from whence it came...i say put it on a rocket squarley aimed at the sun for a taste of reality-based global warming
Howard| 1.6.10 @ 8:52AM
I thought the movie was okay. I know some people who were somewhat like the Clooney character, transient people. I thought the Alex character was interesting. It is true that since the late 1960's Hollywood has consistently used the formula described by the author of this piece. The best example is The Manchurian Candidate. The original made in 1962 had the Soviets and Red China as the antagonists. The remake made a few years ago, had an evil corporation in the bad guy role.
PolishKnight| 1.6.10 @ 10:39AM
I agree with James that there was a lot about the film that was typical smug, leftist hollywood and Clooney was the same wonkish character he was in "Burn after opening."
That said, though, the film was fun since it showed the glamorous side of flying which has been missing for decades since terrorism has been successful in making it a more miserable experience for everyone (to help the left avoid the evils of "profiling" (or at least profiling non-white males.)) Flying SHOULD be glamorous and fun and the left certainly seemed to enjoy it when they hitched up their private jets and limos to go to Copenhagen to preach the evils of flying and limos...
In addition, I rather liked some of the politically incorrect notions they felt they needed to toy with to make the film interesting. Keener's high powered and lonely career woman is an interesting commentary on the failings of feminism for young women. On the other hand, the successful older career woman, Alex, is portrayed as lonely and craving the hottie that Clooney is with a twist (which I won't spoil by revealing.) Even conservatives have not touched this sacred cow.
I rather liked that they let certain character's go, without having them come back later except in one exception, because it did make the film more unpredictable. If someone had knifed Clooney's tires or showed up at his place, I would have been disappointed.
NoraCharles| 1.6.10 @ 1:05PM
I didn't think either of the women was lonely. In fact, the main "lesson" derived from the younger one's story line is that you shouldn't count on a significant other to make you happy. Rather, you should follow your own path. (Remember, she followed her college sweetheart to some silly town instead of taking a better job in San Francisco, and that didn't end very well for her.)
I thought it was an excellent film. The characters were complex and, contrary to all the criticism here, there were no hit-you-over-the-head ideological points. Why can't people just enjoy a good story any more? Besides, if "conservative" films were in such high demand, someone would definitely be making them and earning a handsome living in the process. This is such a silly way to analyze entertainment.
PolishKnight| 1.6.10 @ 2:09PM
Er, Nora, Natalie CRIED in Ryan's arms in public and then spent much of the movie criticizing Ryan as being immature and throwing away a great relationship with Alex. (SPOILER ALERT!!!) Alex said that she needed "an escape". From WHAT exactly? She was already in the air most of the time like Ryan!
You uttered one of the great Hollywood cliches: "Rather, you should follow your own path." Er, the whole film cleverly discusses the pros and cons of commitment both about marriage (Ryan's sister's marital problems) and corporate life (and the trauma of being let go from a 9 to 5 grounded rat-race). Even Ryan's freedom was an illusion since his boss could threaten to "ground him."
I chuckled when you said that Natalie could have gotten a better job in SF. My heterosexual cousin got a professional job in SF and was miserably lonely. Even so, Ryan counsels his sister's fiance to get married and a "co-pilot" showing that the situation is far more nuanced than simply "emptying the backback" and not counting on a significant other to make you happy. Ryan's sister certainly wasn't cynical about marriage and blaming it for not making her happy since she put Ryan up to it.
One of the best moments in the film is where Alex lectures Natalie about the merits of "settling." The notion of still being able to land a 1950's breadwinner who will be able to support you if your "path" at work doesn't work out is replaced with "hope he earns more money than you" and getting a tall, handsome stud as a reward for success is replaced with someone whose just taller than her.
Ryan's visit to his HS additionally sets the tone for the disillusionment of growing up and realizing that life isn't about everyone becoming astronauts and doctors and marrying cheerleaders and football captains. I found this to be a very adult, soberting, thought provoking film and that's what I, and many other members of the audience, enjoyed about it.
The notion of a "silly way" to analyze entertainment is, in itself, silly. Most of the time, people go to the films to be entertained and get away from thinking. That's what the rest of the people going to different sections of the multikino were doing going to Avatar or Sherlock Holmes.
Whew!
explosion proof floodlight | 11.25.10 @ 1:31AM
That's the way it went in the U.S. for decades. People in poor communities were convinced that the police and justice system didn't give a hang about crime in their neighborhoods.
Tom| 1.6.10 @ 11:08AM
Avatar was not kid pleasing. In the car on the way home, my 12 year old grandson opined "why did they have to make the Americans (those capitalists from the hot, dry dead planet) evil?" It was a good story except for that. Ah, kids say the darnedest things. :0)
Yosemeti Sam| 1.6.10 @ 11:40AM
Hollywoods' scatological offerings?
Moving pictures replete with f*** and s***
evocations?
It's simply their - producers - way of enunciating their reasons: for being!
Ya know - to 'spread' their liberal essence
to craptured audiences. Crap sells!
LOL
Roscoe| 1.6.10 @ 12:20PM
Another on the list of pictures that I'll never see. Oh well, too bad for me.... I guess I'll just load my Casablanca DVD again.
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 12:29PM
The American Spectator : Down With Up in the Air American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
sherry| 1.6.10 @ 12:32PM
This is one of the worst movies I have seen. Save your money!
Pingback| 1.6.10 @ 12:43PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Down With Up in the Air [spectator.o links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Tim| 1.6.10 @ 1:29PM
If the people he fired were blue and computer generated, this would be Avatar.
Deborah D| 1.6.10 @ 1:36PM
I'll go see a George Clooney movie when he becomes an American who loves his country and who actually portrays Americans as good people instead of freaks, retrobates, idiots and criminals. Oh, I'm sure he will/has play/played a very honorable politician some time along the way -- of course that would be Democrat with a halo. :)
So, I suppose I won't be in the movie seat for a very lonnnng time.
Hank| 1.6.10 @ 3:09PM
I, for one, liked it. And I saw very little overt politization in the film. Yes, Clooney worked for a company that fired people for other companies but that doesn't make it a film about "evil corporations."
Roy| 1.6.10 @ 4:51PM
I agree, but wouldn't it be nice if the guy wondering about the futility of it all was once in a while an unfirable hack serving time in the Department of Pointless Regulo-Blather?
John II| 1.6.10 @ 9:03PM
Okay, here's the final word. Clooney is no Jimmy Stewart or Brian Donlevy. But he's not even a Henry Fonda or Spencer Tracy. Forget the politics. The trouble is that, personally, Clooney is a narcissistic creep--and it always, but I mean ALWAYS oozes through in whatever role he plays. Final word.
Osamas Pajamas| 1.7.10 @ 2:11AM
I liked the film but then I'm an uncritical boob. Probably some of the angst and injury of layoffs can be be mitigated by a management which daily engages with the staff on the subject of their economic challenges, the competition, the prospects for growth or survival. In that context a layoff would more likely be seen as a true necessity based on facts and the routine review of the company's financial circumstances might even contribute to a wider effort among the employees to ensure its success. Uh, but of course that's not in the film.
canuckistani| 1.7.10 @ 2:36PM
First and foremost, this is just a movie. The storytelling is just a fictional model of a possible real story, more or less a composite of the "times". Lots of Americans are looking at their lives and wondering what all of the fuss is about and might find some interesting relevance in this movie. We are becoming a nation of transients without a neighborhood to call home any more. Sad, possibly, but maybe just a reflection of our preferences to be left alone to wander. Hollywood will write stuff that taps into that, and it appears, critically anyway, that Reitman has hit the mark.
Clooney is Clooney and he has the "it" factor today. His Michael Clayton movie was even better, and went even deeper into our perceived character flaws. But, again, just a movie.
PolishKnight| 1.8.10 @ 1:52PM
canuckistani, I'm reminded of a saying that when your brakes don't work you grip the wheel harder. Our society has become unfriendly and cold in many ways, as I said above, many women feel that they are "going their own path" if they become professionals (even after watching a movie where people are coldly laid off in a businesslike setting.)
Diversity forces us to depersonalize as much as possible (especially for non-PC things). No more Christmas decorations at work and even many associations prohibit them. You have little in common with most of your neighbors and, as a result, don't feel any pressing need to run to their aid or care about them and they feel the same way.
Clooney's typical smugness tapped into that feeling that there are people out there who are borderline psychopaths (don't care about others) but that's simply them adapting to, and enjoying the world they've been given the best they can. Nobody knows better than Ryan that workplace friendships can end at the next layoff.
I think one of the greatest films to address this sentiment, and in a humorous manner to boot, was "Office Space." It had more laughs in the first 10 minutes than all of Up in the Air.
NavyBrat| 1.10.10 @ 2:35PM
Other than the Ocean's movies, I avoid George Clooney's flicks like the plague. This looks like yet another plague infested movie I WON't be watching.
Pingback| 1.13.10 @ 12:37PM
SW5 Notebook: Ashton Kutcher | Ashton Kutcher Celebrity Monitor links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 3.9.10 @ 10:58AM
March 09 2010 « Oh For Crying Out Loud… links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
ms office 2007 | 3.21.10 @ 12:22AM
Office 2007 Professional
Office 2007 Ultimate
www.us-bapeoutlet.com | 4.2.10 @ 4:47AM
www.us-bapeoutlet.com
Sam Anderson| 11.7.10 @ 11:12AM
George Clooney is my favorite movie start, handsome, cool and look like perfect father. Car news and information technology.
Converse | 8.11.11 @ 9:36PM
is good