Up in the Air, director Jason Reitman's follow-up to his Oscar-nominated Juno and his debut Thank You for Smoking, isn't just a stronger and richer film than either; it's a strong and rich film in its own right. Like his debut, Thank You for Smoking, it's got a savage streak of satire; unlike that film, Up in the Air is set around a warm and wounded heart. Like Juno, Up in the Air has a certain sentimental optimism; unlike Juno, that sentiment is never used as the emergency exit for the easy way out. Up in the Air triumphs as an entertaining and, yes, thought-provoking film that turns our current mood of national economic anxiety into comedy while still talking about the real facts of our current crisis and asking more than a few eternal questions. Some naysayers have already dismissed the film — a friend of mine, without seeing it, sniffed via Twitter that they "… can't wait for another movie where an executive discovers their soul." But Up in the Air isn't about that; it's about how we don't seem to have a working system of work in America any more, just an ongoing game of musical chairs where we all hope to have a seat and a job when the music stops and never have the time to wonder who, exactly, is playing the tune and pulling the available seats away one by one.
Ryan Bingham (George Clooney, charming but beat-up) is a frequent flyer and a frequent liar. He jets around from ailing business to ailing business, laying people off for employers who don't have the guts or the gall to do it themselves. (Reitman peppers the film with montages — from Ryan's point-of-view — of people responding to their firing, played for the most part by real people who've recently lost their jobs. It could be a gimmick; it isn't.) Ryan's good at what he does — perhaps a little too good, packing like a pro, sailing through security, accumulating corporate loyalty points and going from town to town telling lies so skillfully he may even be fooling himself; he's like The Music Man with a mileage plan, the latest spin on a classic American lie.
Clooney's perfect as Ryan — a little charming, a little tired, capable of looking a little foolish and thus being even more charming. Ryan has good personal luck — meeting a fellow frequent flyer (Vera Farmiga) who's sexy, sassy and fun — just as he has bad professional luck. The company he works for, motivated by driven new young hire Natalie Keener (Anna Kendricks, surprisingly good in what could have been a one-note part defined by the joke of her name but who has, and hits, richer notes than that) is going to pull Ryan and his peers off the road and start firing people via the internet. Over a webcam. This, to Ryan, isn't just making a humiliating and tough time in people's lives worse; it's endangering his job and, more importantly, his chances of becoming a 10-million miler in American's loyalty program. …
Discussing what happens when Ryan's tasked to take Natalie out on the road to show her the ropes — or, rather, the noose — would belabor the point. But Clooney, Farmiga and Kendricks not only all do what you expect but go through things that you don't. Reitman's script adaptation, alongside Sheldon Turner, of Walter Kirn's novel not only makes jokes but makes points, and doesn't allow itself, or us, the opportunity to look away when things get tough. Many movies tell us "live your dreams," and that's part of what Ryan tells the people he's just fired: "Any person who's changed the world or founded an empire sat where you're sitting now," spouting slogans to soothe. But Up in the Air isn't about living your dreams; it's about the terrifying-yet-exhilarating, hopeful-but-wounded necessity of having a plan b, about maybe lowering your standards, about how maybe your dream isn't what you should be dreaming, about all of the messy compromises we make in our modern world without ever quite understanding why. …
And Reitman's direction is honed and assured, from his comedic timing to his deft use of flyover footage and how his careful eye captures the splendor and the terror of the tastefully lame world of corporate America. Reitman nails the world of airport lounges and chain hotels, generic offices and faceless buildings, where "loyalty" is a word printed on a card with plenty of fine print on the back and there's always karaoke and an open bar at the mixer at the hotel because the company loves you, right up until they ask you for your keycard and get security to walk you out. Some have suggested that Up in the Air will play well with the frequent-flyers of the film fest crowd, but I think it'll play well for anyone who's had a boss and felt a knot of fear in their gut when they've announced, as Clooney's boss Jason Bateman does, that something's going to be "a real game-changer." That is to say, these days, it'll play well for all of us. I don't know if Up in the Air is a film for the ages, but at the nervy start of the new century, it certainly feels like the perfect film for our age.
Posted on September 12, 2009 at 7:23 am
James -
Sorry to hijack this post, but I wanted to ask a couple of questions about the movie “Sugar” (which we rented and watched last night). Feel free to kill this from the discussion or move it elsewhere; as far as I can tell you guys do not have published e-mail addresses. I note there is no post for this film, maybe this will give an idea for one.
1. The theatrical release for this movie was rated R; the DVD is rated PG-13 and has an “edited for content” card at the start. This seems highly unusual (usually PG-13 movies become “unrated” at DVD release). So, what was cut, and what do you think the strategy was here.
2. The description for this film at the redbox kiosk (and on the website) mentions something about the lead character coming to the US after seeing “Field of Dreams”. Huh? Nothing close to that in the version we saw? What’s the deal here? Somewhere along the line a copywriter was behind deadline, maybe? Or just an outright untruth to get more of the general public to take the plunge?
3. What’s your feeling on misleading artwork/descriptions in general, particularly for indie films like this. Beyond the mention of “Field of Dreams”, the cover for Sugar (with the fireworks) is also a very false indication of the tone and content of the film. We had similar experiences with “the Visitor” which features an upbeat description and smiling faces on the promo material. I get it: browsers are more likely to pick up a film that looks upbeat, and hopefully will get drawn into the more serious aspects. But do the ends justify the means?
JGM
Posted on September 12, 2009 at 11:08 am
Hey JGM,
Actually I’M supposed to be reviewing Sugar, but I didn’t get a preview copy and then I was on vacation last week. I was hoping to get to it this weekend or early next week.
So I have a whole bunch of “I’m not sure”s for you…
– I did not see the film in its limited theatrical release, but the change to PG-13 is not a redbox thing–the dvd is being released by its distributor that way to everyone and every outlet. From what I can find online, it appears a few profanities and a little bit of a porno film being watched within the film have been cut. Obviously the reason for this is that PG-13 dvds are more likely to be rented by a larger number of folks and be sold in large chain stores.
– I can only point out that James, Erika, and I do not write the redbox promo material for the dvds. And I’m guessing that whoever does has not seen all the films and is only going by the promotional material he or she has from the distributor. I remember when I was writing up a preview piece that included Sugar, I did see the “Field of Dreams” thing mentioned in places describing the film. Maybe it was an element cut from the final film, or more likely it was like a game of telephone–someone made a comparison to Field of Dreams (due to the Iowa and baseball connection) and somewhere along the way it got erroneously mixed into the plot description that the copywriter was going by.
– As for misleading artwork/descriptions, I agree with your general point: Yes, when it comes to marketing, dvd companies (and rental services like redbox) are going to play up elements they think will make more people rent a title. We hope that what we do here at redblog helps off-set that effect somewhat (and again, it’s MY fault there’s no Sugar review up yet). I personally do NOT feel its necessary and am not a fan of falsely marketing or hyping a film in order to get people to rent it, but then that’s why I prefer to write editorial reviews instead of marketing copy (even though I’ve done the latter before and it pays MUCH better).
I saw this in effect with Adventureland, a film I like very much, but that was marketed by the studio during both its theatrical and dvd releases as “from the director of Superbad” and as a wacky, gross-out, “hilarious” youth comedy. And I felt, from reading the redblog reader comments, that many people strongly disliked Adventureland because they rented it expecting that and instead got a small, sensitive, dramedy instead of a yuk-fest.
Of course the counter argument is that misleading marketing might get people to rent a film like Sugar or Adventureland and enjoy a smaller, subtler film they might have passed by otherwise. I’m personally not a big fan of that “end justifies the means” artistic argument, of “tricking” people into “eating their vegetables.” I think that for every one person who sees a smaller indie film and likes it, you end up with half a dozen who are frustrated the film was not what they were expecting.
Posted on September 15, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I’m loving i it already. Juno grabbed me tightly and didn’t let go or let me down. Warm and fresh and real describes it for me. Thinking about a realistic treatment of how the workplace is handling people in today’s world, especially with George Clooney adding his touch, is a must see in my book.
Posted on September 15, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Locke, thanks for the thoughtful reply re:Sugar and sorry again to James for taking the thread off-topic.
I should say that reading this back, I sound pretty negative on Sugar; my comments had to do with the marketing of the film, not the film itself. I will hold off giving a detailed comment on that pending Locke’s review.
JGM