Jazz, I agree. It was awful. The story jumped all over, was simplistic and the acting was bad. What was particularly annoying for me was Clooney seemed to mumble the entire time. I read somewhere that in the future we will identify this film as one that will ‘mark’ the sign of the (u.s.) current economic times. I don’t think so. I think now, I’m totally spoiled after watching so many truly great films offered in the Auteurs’ World Cup.
puzzled by the critical acclaim….
The herd loves Clooney – he could be POTUS.
I love the film, but a lot less than any other critics who praised him as best movie of the year. As its moment and refreshing, but it clearly don’t make a 2009 top ten for me.
@Robert
lol … thought you were referring to Clooney as a lesser known ancient Greek Adonis with your “POTUS” comment – until I spotted a local blog which read, “POTUS/FLOTUS arrive today to holiday at Kailua Beach.”
@Jazz
I didn’t have time to spend on my comment above but have since read a review I appreciate.
DEFINITELY IN THE AIR
From the director of glorified indie films, “Thank You For Smoking,” and “Juno,” Hollywood can pat itself on the back for supporting a film to the tune of 24 million, about the current unemployment crisis, through one mans somewhat inner journey traveling the country as a corporate downsizing, aka firing expert. Last night at the DGA in Los Angeles, I previewed the film which was followed by a Q&A with creator, Jason Reitman. George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a sharp, proud, smooth talking bachelor, gliding through airports, living out of a glossy, well-oiled black suitcase. His life is presented as a series of transactions with premiere plastic, coming and going from sterilized hotel rooms, “on the road” minus some forty days out of the year, practically invisible to his family. Office after office, he is the man that fires unsuspecting employees for companies too cowardly to do the job themselves— and make no mistake, Ryan Bingham is very good at it. Ending each termination session with saying that who ever built an empire had to first reach rock bottom, Bingham is also a motivational speaker with a motto inspiring people to let go of their baggage, through the contrived metaphor of a backpack. I have to confess, Clooney is equally as convincing as the character he plays—his sparkling eyes and cool, collected demeanor bringing a sense of empathy to the otherwise apathetic Bingham.
As the narrative progresses, a few things happen—Bingham meets Alex, played by Vera Farmiga, a successful, frequently flying woman he likes, crudely described in her own words as like him, but with a vagina. He also faces losing his precious solitary lifestyle because his company is going digital, investing in web-based video technology to cut costs and fire people electronically through a monitor—and the woman responsible for this is Natalie, depicted by Anna Kendrick, an ambitious, Cornell graduate with her pick of places to work, overly-confident, but naive and inexperienced in what is required in the fragile art of firing. Bingham’s boss assigns him the task of taking Alex on the road to show her the ropes, which he begrudgingly does. A series of events veer the film from initially being a dark comedy to a more serious drama—where Bingham’s life begins to unravel and make less sense as he discovers his own desire to love and be loved.
While it’s intentions are good, my qualms with this film are many. Yes, it’s conventionally well-shot and has a certain “fresh” quality by Hollywood standards, but the writing feels self-conscious and apart from Bingham, surrounding characters are reduced to movie clichés. After the screening, Jason Reitman commented that in addition to Bingham’s character, he was interested in exploring the contemporary phenomenon of single women mid-life, who were promised that success would bring them happiness. Had he genuinely followed through with this, “Up in the Air,” would have been a more interesting film on many levels, but Reitman’s treatment of Alex falls very short of any kind of resonant execution. She struts around in heels with an overt masculinity, rarely revealing any semblance of a soul and proving in the end that she hardly has one. And while the younger Natalie may be ambitious, the director is relentless in undermining her as the comic relief, bumbling around like a fool, marriage-obsessed, crying like a baby on Bingham’s shoulder, apologizing for one thing or another. Had Reitman given them more dimension, their parallel lives could have been effective and meaningful.
Choosing to use 22 non-actors recently let go of their jobs for the segments where Bingham and Natalie execute their terminations, Reitman infuses the film with a vérité quality, utilizing candid, impromptu, oftentimes, deeply sad segments to communicate the realities of what has affected national record-breaking populations. It is infuriating to witness Reitman cutting many of these people as they are mid-sentence, without grace, using their words only when they serve the pacing of his film. Had Reitman afforded these anonymous souls the time to speak, to look us in the face, the film could have actually been profound. Reitman essentially packages their sorrows in an unsettling way, making their suffering and desperation digestible for audiences.
This is a film driven by the powerhouse that is George Clooney. Asserting that the film would not have been funded had it not been for Clooney’s involvement, Reitman has created a movie in his service—actually about a man very similar to the actor, a bachelor who travels a lot, used to play basketball, and is perhaps experiencing a mid-life crisis. Beyond this, the film lacks the depth and sincerity it should have for a subject matter so relevant to today’s climate. When the film is over and the credits roll, Reitman includes a song composed by an unemployed, 50 year old, who handed him a tape about the condition and depression of living without work. After being asked about this, Reitman cracked a condescending joke to the audience about how when this man found out his music would be included in the film, he thought he could start a music career.
Thought? And why not, Reitman?
I did not have huge problems with it. Sure, it is not a film which you see and are mystified by. “Up in the Air” is a film which a person watches enjoys the little humor and likes the unique characters with all their subtle traits, or at least that is how I felt. But yes, you are correct it could be too “moral of the story” and simple/flawed in its ideas, is it trying to be profound or original? Maybe, maybe not. I can say it is better than most of the mainstream films “Precious” and “Invictus” are prime examples, which are apparently awing the critics currently.
I appreciate Reitman, I liked “Juno,” or at least the first time and “Thank You for Smoking” was also very enjoyable. This could all be because my expectations for film are almost always very low, hardly ever, do I expect a film to actually be “every second” enjoyable and interesting, so when one is, I get a bit excited.
I did not have huge problems with it. Sure, it is not a film which you see and are mystified by. “Up in the Air” is a film which a person watches enjoys the little humor and likes the unique characters with all their subtle traits, or at least that is how I felt. But yes, you are correct it could be too “moral of the story” and simple/flawed in its ideas, is it trying to be profound or original? Maybe, maybe not. I can say it is better than most of the mainstream films “Precious” and “Invictus” are prime examples, which are apparently awing the critics currently.
I appreciate Reitman, I liked “Juno,” or at least the first time and “Thank You for Smoking” was also very enjoyable. This could all be because my expectations for film are almost always very low, hardly ever, do I expect a film to actually be “every second” enjoyable and interesting, so when one is, I get a bit excited.
Precious and Invictus aren’t terrible films, but they’re far from great, imo. In some ways, Up in the Air is worse than either of the two because it seems confused—or perhaps I should say that it had potential to go in more interesting and rewarding directions. For example, Subramanian points out the potential for an interesting parallel between Natalie and Alex. I also think a conventional romantic-comedy in the classic Hollywood mold would have made a better film—eliminating the social commentary.
I just watched it. I wasn’t impressed.
I thought Clooney was about the only redeemable aspect of the film. Reitman’s direction is so smug and self aware not to mention heavy handed. As if I didn’t know this film was relevant to the current economic crisis the film has to bombard me with these real life interviews that just feel too gimmicky.
Agree with USER.
I hate how his films pretend to be so casual with their message, only to be screaming them at you. The problem with this film is it delivers too many messages at once. It conveys them well enough, but couldn’t they at least try to be subtle? Give me subtext, don’t just blind me with it. Again, it’s not a terrible movie, and it’s not a nauseating as Juno, but…meh, overall I don’t see the big deal.
I thought it was entirely fine in every way. The film is wildly overrated.
Moderated
Spoiler
The problem I have is the film seems to favor distancing yourself from people. When Clooneys character opens up he experiences pain, that he would have never felt had he maintained his life of emotional distance from people, which seems to be how we leave him in the film. Likewise, the younger girls biggest mistake is shown to be following her heart, and following a boy. When we leave her in the film she is off on her own alone, but starting a new promising career.
The message seems to be that there are those meant for close relationships with people, and those emotionally distant people that will just never understand relationships. Makes for a very depressing film.
Michael,
Spoilers
Actually, I thought the film was an indictment on Clooney’s character and his approach. He sets up this materialistic goal—flying a million miles—which is a kind of business achievement—as the main purpose in his life, while neglecting family and eschewing any meaningful relationships. When he goes to his sisters wedding and starts falling in love with Farmiga’s character, he begins to question his approach. But it’s too late—both for his sister (he’s not walking her down the isle) and Farmiga’s character is married and doesn’t want a deeper relationship. The message for me was similar to films like Ikiru or a novel like The Death of Ivan Ilyich. The depiction of Clooney’s character is depressing, but it’s supposed to be because it serves as a warning. Remember Clooney’s depressing ending is jutxaposed with the people who have been fired talking about having loved ones in their lives is more important than losing their jobs.
The way I’m describing the film doesn’t flatter the film, but I think the description is appropriate.
I see i am a little behind on commenting on this film but, i am going to go ahead agree with the fact that i was COMPLETELY underwhelmed by this film. i had pretty high expectations, so that very easily could have had something to do with my disappointment.
Overall, i was kind of confused at what i was supposed to be getting out of Up In The Air. Is the film preaching the notion that we are destined to be alone and we need to just accept it? who or what was i supposed to care about? it was like i was watching someone’s inside joke; there are only a few who are supposed to fully understand what was happening.
Taking a look at the space that “Up in the Air” occupies (slick, romantic comedy), I think it’s a steller example of what Hollywood doesn’t seem to be able to do anymore; namely, make a romantic comedy with any amount of sophistication and charm. Looking back at some great romantic comedies of the past (mostly screwball films, like “Ball of Fire” or “The Awful Truth”) we see that melodrama, glitz, sexiness, and smarts can all mingle in one supremely entertaining film.
I’m not sure that “Up in the Air” is at the level of those films, mainly because it isn’t nearly as funny, but it is good. Some people have complained that plot elements are too obvious, and I agree. But I’m not always big on plot, so I generally just enjoyed watching it unfold. The performences were good, in my opinion, and I thought there was a decent amount of chemistry. I understand the complaint about Reitman exploiting the recession for purposes almost unrelated to the larger context of the film, but I still enjoyed those scenes. Many of the laid-off workers were recruited from the ranks of real unemployed, and I thought they all did a good job. Individually, excised from the larger film, I think they have some real semi-documentary power. I also loved that shot of the office that looks like it’s been wiped out by a tornado.
But this film and this thread is actually what promted me to start my “whelming” thread. You see, I didn’t see “Up in the Air” until it was almost out of the theatre, and I saw it on accident. I had intended to see “Shutter Island” on opening night, but the projectionist had the bottom half of the screen out of focus. After notifying an usher about this, the problem didn’t get fixed and I got a refund. Then I noticed that “Up in the Air” was playing for a discount rate, and I figured that I’d rather not waste the trip out to the theatre. I was the only one in attendence, and I honestly didn’t expect too much from it. I’d read some reviews, both positive and negative, and it didn’t seem like something I’d be very interested in. I checked it out only because it had been nominated for Best Picture. Needless to say, the light mood of the film was exactly what I needed to sooth my frustration over the missed “Shutter Island” screening.
Reitman is such a profoundly shallow filmmaker that to try to dig deep to get any meaning is an exercise in futility. Generic film made by a rich, smug, and superficial Hollywood asshole trying to tell viewers that being a rich, smug and superficial asshole won’t make life fulfilling.
This deleted scene (which Reitman had intended as the original finale) would have made the film much better in retrospect. It would have been a nice foil to all the heavy-handedness.
Phantom said, “I’m not sure that “Up in the Air” is at the level of those films, mainly because it isn’t nearly as funny, but it is good.”
The other problem is that it tries to do too many things—specifically deal with serious issues (ie. the economic crisis, self-centeredness, etc.) Had the film been a more conventional romantic-comedy, I think it could have been really good. The dialogue and acting between Clooney and Farmiga reminded me of the Classic Hollywood rom-coms, but those other scenes that you liked got in the way of the film, imo.
I think this is partly explains the reason the film confused Josef. I definitely get the sense that the film doesn’t really know what kind of film it’s trying to be—or it trying to do too many things at one time.
@Dequinix
Speaking of heavy-handedness, that clip accumulates tonnage by the minute.
@Ari
You said that “Up in the Air” is a shallow and generic film; I’d be curious to hear more on that point, if you have the time. Or, if you’d rather be pithy, even the names of some recent Hollywood movies that do the same generic things UitA does.
Also: if Jason Reitman is “a rich, smug, superficial Hollywood asshole,” then what does that make of say Billy Wilder or Steven Soderbergh?
Cheers.
Fair enough, Anthony. But I don’t see your comparison with Billy Wilder and Steven Soderbergh. Both of them made it on their own without daddy’s help. I really just can’t stand Jason Reitman. Beyond the fact that I can’t stand his films (and Up In the Air is his best film), he seems like a prick. Is that unfair? Sure.
Shallow and generic in a nutshell = businessman learns the value of caring for family and others. How many bad Hollywood films fit that plotline? You really want me to list them? I can.
“Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?”
Anyway, I’m pretty sure they gave out last year’s “smug director” award to Sam Mendes for “Away We Go”. I don’t normally go in for citicisms that assume the director is condescending to his characters, but Mendes forced me to this time.
It is unfair to complain that Reitman is riding on the coattails of his father. Like his films or not, they’ve been successful in their own right. I imagine that if someone else had made them they’d be just as successful. Or at least close. Is Reitman a prick? Maybe, but just about every major director in history has been a prick at one time or another to some extent, so he’s in good company.
Anthony: Nothing bothered me more about the film that the final montage of interviews by the unemployed. So, regardless of how “obvious” the space sequence is, it’s far better than shoving the bad economy down my throat.
i was underwhelmed by this film but i thought the direction and acting was solid enough that i enjoyed it. my main problem with this film was the predictability. my dad leaned over and announced to me what was going to happen in the scene where clooney visits vera’s character before it occurred, and it was pretty obvious.
when it comes to reitman, i think of him as a shallow version of alexander payne.
“when it comes to reitman, i think of him as a shallow version of alexander payne.”
This is an absolutely perfect description, Caleb.
Phantom, you’re right. Mendes is even more smug of a director in terms of mining similar themes and subject matters with a similarly condescending treatment. I also agree that I am being unfair to Reitman in terms of my personal reaction against him (although it seems like this perception is held by a lot of others – what is it about him that makes him seem particularly prick-like?). I forget what podcast I heard him on but he just came off like a complete prick. It didn’t shape my opinion of his films (they were already shaped). In fact, I liked Up in the Air ten times more than Juno. At least (spoilers alert!), it didn’t cop out when he went to Vera’s character’s house (I was thinking – please let a husband answer the door or this film will fall apart. Actually, maybe my desire for that is part of the film’s faux significance – rather than have a conventional happy ending, it tries to play it more profound).
@Dequinix I found the montage very affecting — and not for the typical reasons. Here’s a movie about total lack of “typical humanity” or “empathy” in its main character, and here are these people at their most vulnerable and needy. We weren’t meant, I think, to feel sorry for them as much as realize how far Clooney’s character is from really connecting to any of them.
@Ari True, Wilder and Soderbergh didn’t have a Dad hand them a career — but neither did Reitman. Sure his father was in the business; but that doesn’t mean he’s coat-tailed it. He’s done his own work and created movies on the strength of his directorial skills.
Commercial as they might be, they’re strong skills. Think of the brilliance of that scene in “Juno” when Juno’s getting a sonogram and her step-mom disses the technician. In the next scene we learn (or are lied to) that she and her mom were escorted of the premises by security guards; in a far lesser movie, this would be the ba-dum-psh of the scene — a gag to be a high point in the story. In “Juno” so much else is at stake and being examined that scenes like that were totally ignored. Or think of the brilliance of the dialogue in UitA: each scene gradually accumulates a series of ideas and images to only watch them slowly warp out and back into shape by the movie’s end. A good example is the offscreen or imaginary violence — we don’t actually see the girl’s suicide, watch Clooney bicker with his family, see the breakup with Natalie and her boyfriend. His focus on reactions to more passionate events is smart and well-covered by the movie’s dialogue.
And I’m not totally sure if the “point” or “message” of UitA is that a “businessman learns the value of caring for family and others” — I think that might be true for the first half of the film, but certainly not for the second and the ending. The entire movie interested me so much because it approached that question of “happiness in career versus family” and then skirted it to discuss Clooney’s state in life — his character.
It’s been like two months since I’ve seen it (only once, mind you — so I’m going off a weak memory here) but I remember the ending being pretty bleak and most of all not based in any moral: Clooney tried to “learn” things but ultimately doesn’t change. He just becomes more set in his ways and changes his view of HOW he lives as a fly-heavy businessman, not that at all he becomes a different person. He just sinks deeper into the concrete that is his life as it hardens more and more.
@Anthony
You said, “It’s been like two months since I’ve seen it (only once, mind you — so I’m going off a weak memory here) but I remember the ending being pretty bleak and most of all not based in any moral: Clooney tried to “learn” things but ultimately doesn’t change. He just becomes more set in his ways and changes his view of HOW he lives as a fly-heavy businessman, not that at all he becomes a different person. He just sinks deeper into the concrete that is his life as it hardens more and more.”
And that reinforces the moral of the tale: don’t be like this guy. Remember Reitman contrasts the closing shots of Reitman with the montage of interviewees talking about how they realize that having loved ones is more important than losing a job.
Vera Farmiga and “Help Yourself” are the two best things about this film.
The rest is average.
@Will Vera Farmiga is ravishingly good.
@Jazzaloha Terrific points. I was probably thinking “hey — I’m just like that Clooney guy” instead of “guess the moral is to stay away from lonely firing sharks” which probably skewed my analysis.
With the very final and very sticking-in-my-head line “The stars will wield forth from their daytime hiding places, and one of those lights, slightly brighter than the rest, will be my wingtip passing over.” made me think that it was kind of a, well, a good thing that Clooney stayed up in the … air (errrm, I’m sorry for that) as that’s the place he’s most natural and himself.
I guess why I found that unique was: most movies from the Hollywood machine (or financed by it) would have the main character LEARN that not just as something he’s missed but as a fact he could incorporate into his real and actual life. That Clooney didn’t change was, I thought, a kind of brave thing.
But as you pointed out: it’s certainly damn ambiguous. Maybe that’s why Reitman is such a “popular” (as in “Citizen Kane is a popular movie” or “made for many, not for a few”; not in terms of actual box-office #s) director — he can stick in subtle messages like this that can go either way; and the people (like me) who identify with Clooney see something magical in it; and the people like Alex can go back to their homes, secure knowing that they have the right stuff.
Those mixed messages are probably crucial to any popular art, come to think of it.
Anyway, cheers.
Jazzaloha
I just saw this, and I’m a little puzzled by the critical acclaim this one is getting. Then again, maybe I don’t fully understand this one. Right now, I feel like the film is essentially a film with a lesson: if you invest all of your life in business and none of it in real meaningful relationships, you will have no life. On the other hand, if you have meaningful relationships in your life that’s really more important than any job. Banal? Yes, and hopefully there’s a lot more to this movie than that. Right now, it doesn’t seem that way.
Before I get into other aspects of the film that didn’t work for me, let me state something I liked, namely Clooney and Farmiga, particularly in the early scenes. I enjoyed their chemistry and the way they made a connection through their knowledge from traveling so much and the double-entendre associated with it. They reminded me of classic Hollywood movie stars. But the film was not about them—not really—and I’m partly disappointed with the film because of that.
Other aspects I had trouble with:
1. Clooney’s character is realized well in this, imo. On one hand, his ability to distance himself from people enables him to do his job. On the other hand, at other times, he seems a little too sensitive and sympathetic to not let the job really get to him. The filmmakers didn’t balance these two aspects very well, imo;
2. There were several problems with the Natalie Keener character. She really didn’t have good chemistry with Clooney—and I think she needed to have better chemistry. Keener is taking away the part of the job that Clooney’s character. To add insult to injury, Clooney’s character (Ryan Bingham) has to help her learn about his job. He’s naturally hostile to her, but then when he inexplicably is sort of nice to her. This is where the chemistry is important. The filmmakers had make the audience believe that Bingham would do this. They didn’t, imo.
Also, I’m not sure Keener’s role in the film was. Did the filmmakers basically use her as a contrast to the Bingham character—i.e., a young ambitious business person who realizes before it’s too late that being a decent human being is more important that business success?
Basically, my reading of the story is simplistic—and that’s precisely why I’m disappointed in it. It’d be nice if someone could show me I’m wrong.