up-in-the-air-review.jpg
Single-Serving Friend Seeking Co-Pilot


Up in the Air / Drew Morton

Film Reviews | December 4, 2009 | Comments (40)


Up in the Air focuses on Ryan Bingham (George Clooney), a middle-aged man specializing in counseling people in the midst of career transitions — or, to put it a bit more frankly, Ryan fires employees for businesses that don’t have the spine to do it themselves. In the midst of our current recession, business is booming for Integrated Strategic Management and Ryan is sent all over the United States to render his services. On the verge of reaching five million frequent flier miles, Ryan is informed by his boss, Craig Gregory (Jason Bateman), that the company is looking to cut corners as well. With business taking off, Craig has decided to indulge a new business model masterminded by Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a young, ambitious businesswoman. Natalie’s plan? Instead of spending millions of dollars flying “Terminators” like Ryan around, the company could cut 85 percent of its budget by firing people via video chat. Ryan scoffs at Natalie’s plan, insisting that the service requires personal interaction, as their position leaves people at their most fragile. With an eye towards compromise, Craig sends the duo out across the country to try to learn from one another’s methods.

While Ryan’s job obviously holds depressing consequences for the person sitting at the other end of the desk, it has also taken a toll on Ryan. In order to seemingly make his dirty work tolerable, Ryan has alienated himself from everyone around him. Like Hugh Grant in About a Boy (2002), Ryan relishes being an island, unreachable thanks to a job that puts him on the road and in the air 320 days of the year. In his spare time, Ryan is a motivational speaker who preaches the benefits of this lifestyle choice. As he so eloquently pitches to his audience, “Make no mistake, your relationships are the heaviest components in your life. All those negotiations and arguments and secrets, the compromises. The slower we move the faster we die. Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other, to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star-crossed lovers, monogamous swans. We are not swans. We are sharks.” Imagine his surprise then when he meets Alex (Vera Farmiga), a woman who tells Ryan “I’m just like you but with a vagina.” As time passes, their relationship deepens, particularly through a weekend trip to Ryan’s younger sister’s wedding (the bride and groom are played by Melanie Lynskey and Danny McBride). Yet, the couple must decide if they are capable of putting aside habit and reaching out for a meaningful connection.

I had severe reservations about Jason Reitman’s feature, Up in the Air (2009), upon entering the theater. As Dustin, Dan, and the participants of the L.A. Pajibacon will attest, I did not hide my distaste for Juno (2007) over a short-stack of pancakes at a Culver City Denny’s at two in the morning. Yet, I had often presumed that my problems with the ideologically conservative and superficial Juno (Am I really expected to buy into that love story!?) had more to do with Diablo Cody’s screenplay than Reitman’s execution. After all, his debut film Thank You For Smoking (2006) was cynical, hilarious, and assured in its craft. Reitman, back serving double-duty on Up in the Air as director and co-screenwriter (adapting with Sheldon Turner a novel by Walter Kirn which, for those of you heaping praise on my review of The Road, I have never read), brings many of those sentiments to the film and the result is impressive on all fronts.

Reitman’s gift as a filmmaker manifests itself in three particular artistic choices. First, the film’s aesthetic perfectly captures a shifting worldview. As Reitman noted in a question-and-answer session following the film, the film transitions from Ryan’s point of view to an omniscient perspective. In the first act of the film, the camera is constantly moving; the cuts are shockingly brief; and the mise-en-scène is sleek and muted. As Ryan’s relationships with Natalie and Alex begin to exhibit an unforeseen gravity upon his life, the color palate shifts to warm colors and the camera begins, like Ryan, to settle. I found this to be a thoughtful decision, as it gets us inside Ryan’s perspective without the crutch of voice over, which is often overused in place of more creative means.

Secondly, the way in which Reitman puts his characters in dialogue with one another (both literally and symbolically) provides them with moments of emotional growth in less-traditional fashions. Thankfully, Reitman doesn’t give us the usual version of a tearful or passionate discussion between Ryan and Alex regarding the state of their relationship. Instead, Ryan gets a scene with his sister’s fiancé to discuss the point of marriage and Natalie a scene with Alex in which they discuss how age changes the notion of “settling” romantically. By structuring the script and elaborating upon his characterization in such a way, Reitman subtlety sets up parallels that may have eluded us on first viewing but also do not stand out as complete emotional reveals.

Finally, this is a film built on performances, and everyone involved is incredible. Clooney’s romantic charm marked by cynicism reminded me of his turn in one of my favorite films, Steven Soderbergh’s Out of Sight (1998). His role here is a difficult one, as Ryan is an incredibly nuanced character. His profession and approach to life renders him somewhat unsympathetic in the opening of the film. Yet, there are moments in the final act of the film where Clooney is able to use his eyes and facial expressions to express the difficulty of his position. After all, here is a man whose job pushes him into an unpleasant binary defined only by alienation and connection, and it has its consequences: He’s a single-serving friend seeking a co-pilot. I was very surprised with Vera Farmiga here. I thought she was fine but unsubstantial in The Departed (2006) and she really changed that impression here, particularly in a scene she shares with Natalie and Ryan. Finally, Anna Kendrick as an ambitious woman in the midst of becoming disillusioned is especially strong. She looks and acts a bit like Ellen Page at first, but portrays immense emotional growth and maturity very strongly.

The final performances worth noting are those of the un-professionals Reitman cast as the workers being “let go.” While filming on location across the Midwest, Reitman encountered cities ravaged by unemployment. Hoping to bring some sort of economic relief, Reitman cast numbers of unemployed, interviewed about their termination, and then asked them to reenact their reactions to the news. With the exception of a few character actors (J.K. Simmons and Zach Galifianakis most notably) spread across the film, non-professionals exclusively hold the roles of future unemployed. This touch adds a particular grittiness and reality to Ryan’s profession, taking away the satirical distance that we encountered in Thank You for Smoking. At the end of the day, Up in the Air is a film that, like Ryan, looks to connect and does so in many unsuspected and inspired ways.

Drew Morton is a Ph.D. student in Cinema and Media Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles. He has previously written for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and UWM Post and is the 2008 recipient of the Otis Ferguson Award for Critical Writing in Film Studies.


Animal Precinct Review | Pajiba Love 12/04/09





Comments

A very good review, Drew. I had no intention of seeing this, but now I think will.

Posted by: admin at November 30, 2009 12:27 PM

Another fantastic review Drew. I especially appreciate the paragraphs about Reitman's artistic choices.

Posted by: Cindy at November 30, 2009 12:46 PM

Oh, I will definitely see this. Nicely done, Drew.

Posted by: Sean at November 30, 2009 12:50 PM

You're a tough sell, Mr. Morton, and I'm now very psyched for this film. Nobody's better than George Clooney when he works at it, and I've been waiting for Vera Farmiga to get a decent role; it seems she ran with it, and I'm glad.

Posted by: Jerce at November 30, 2009 12:52 PM

I've been waiting for this one for a while, since I first saw the trailer on here. Well done Drew. This just stokes the fire, so to speak.

Posted by: John Denver's Wingman at November 30, 2009 12:54 PM

I so wanna see this! So glad to hear it's good.

Posted by: Sofía at November 30, 2009 1:09 PM

I've been waiting for this one for a while now. Can't wait to see it.

Posted by: Kevin Longrie at November 30, 2009 1:40 PM

Good review, but it is strangely telling that every commenter simply states their desire to see the movie. I feel like I want to see this movie as well, but the trailer has absolutely no affect on me whatsoever. I love Clooney in the right roles (Oh Brother, Out of Sight, Ocean's Eleven - that's a lot of "O"s) and J.K. Simmons wrecks the screen at all times, but I can't get a feel for it. Kind of like a rainbow. Sure it's pretty and strange in its own existence, but its impact is based entirely on the context, not its inherent beauty (i.e. over a waterfall or on a special day). So, I guess I'm trying to say that I will love "Up in the Air" if I simultaneously receive a blowjob.

Posted by: Kballs at November 30, 2009 2:00 PM

Drew, that was a very thoughtful, insightful and useful reveiw. Thanks for that.

Posted by: Xtreme at November 30, 2009 2:00 PM

The book was kind of forgettable, and it sounds from your review like the recession lent needed gravity to the story. I like that, and I like even more how they adapted to the changing times.

Also, this is a great review. Well done.

Posted by: caroline at November 30, 2009 2:24 PM

Boo we in the U.K have to wait until 15 January 2010.

I can't wait for this film, Clooney's "relationships are the heaviest components in your life" schtick is pretty much my mantra. Here's hoping he doesn't go all soft at the end.

Posted by: Dana at November 30, 2009 2:24 PM

Great review Drew. I was thinking about watching this just because it has Clooney (our modern-day non-singing Old Blue Eyes) and Reitman (who did a phenomenal job with Thank You For Smoking). Your review gave me even more reasons to watch the film.

Posted by: bignick at November 30, 2009 4:30 PM

I wasn't sure how I felt about this movie. I can't go off trailers, since I've found they can be so misleading (has anyone ever gone to see a movie and felt like the trailer depicted a totally different film?). So I wasn't sure, but I think I'll catch it now.

Posted by: Snuggiepants the Deathbringer at November 30, 2009 4:34 PM

I missed this at the BFI in London, it was sold out because Clooney was here promoting it, but I thought it looked like a pretty decent movie and this review convinces me to see it sometime.

Posted by: brite at November 30, 2009 5:09 PM

Every site is raving about this movie, but I don't know, I'm just not feeling it.

That said, Clooney always surprises me when working with a good director and Reitman is moving assuredly towards being a good director.

Posted by: Fredo at November 30, 2009 6:14 PM

Great review Drew. As fun as it is to read snarky reviews of shit I’ll never see, it’s equally good to see an eloquent argument in favour of something I might never have considered. Booking the babysitter.

Posted by: Squirrelgripper at November 30, 2009 6:54 PM

Ouch, this hits close to home. I was supposed to hear whether or not I have a job today, but my company decided to drag it out until mid-December. Awesome.

But, you know, despite this movie hitting a little too close I think I might see it. From your review, I think that in some strange way might help me work through the anger I'm feeling right now.

Posted by: stardust at November 30, 2009 7:08 PM

I was lucky enough to see this movie at a sneak screening here in Boston. I went into it not really knowing what it was about and was completely blown away. The performances were phenomenal and I felt it was definitely one of the best movies I've seen this year. Spot on review, Drew.

Posted by: penelope at November 30, 2009 9:02 PM

... color _palates_? Sounds yum. I mean gum.

Posted by: buschmeister at December 1, 2009 12:36 AM

Laughing at buschmeister I noticed that, too.

I can't help it but the girly side of me just sees George's charming smile and hears his lovely voice and goes all fluttery, so that would probably be reason enough to see this movie (and I should probably be embarrassed to admit that). It's nice to hear that I can justify seeing it with more than just my girly flutters. So to speak.

Posted by: Lainie at December 1, 2009 2:09 PM

Thank you. I wanted, NEEDED this movie to be good.

But to make this a perfect experience, I want a perfect companion. Maybe blowjob is not a bad idea.

Posted by: yocean at December 2, 2009 2:12 AM

Re: "color palate" - it's nice to see that Rowles is letting the gaffes stand as published, so the comment thread actually makes sense!

I, too, am relieved by this review...and pleased with how good it (the review) was. I, too, liked the elaboration upon Reitman's directorial choices.

I have a job somewhat like Ryan's that keeps me on the road a significant percentage of the time. There's no doubt about the toll on relationships (I've been doing this kind of work for almost twenty years and am thrice-divorced), and I encounter attitudes like his often. I guess maybe I think I know where a guy like that is coming from, in spite of my own resistance to that choice. Definitely looking forward to seeing this.

Posted by: Che Grovera at December 3, 2009 3:49 PM

Didn't I read this already? Am I having a stroke?

Posted by: superasente at December 4, 2009 12:53 PM

Good review, as usual, but you're busted for the 2nd time on subtly.

8))

Posted by: Recondite at December 4, 2009 2:59 PM

Che Grovera, my husband has a job that keeps him on the road over 300 days a year, believe me, I can identify. We cope with it because we have no other options right now but, at 5 years of this crap, it's getting a little old. The worst part is actually all the well-meaning people that ask horrifically personal questions about "how can your marriage survive" when they find out how much he's gone. People have seriously inquired as to whether I cheat, he cheats, how lonely I must be all the time, etc, etc. "Oh, we could never do that." A complete stranger argued with Mr. Bees one night for over an hour about how he must not REALLY love me if he can be gone that much. Yeah, it sucks, mind your own fucking business.

Posted by: the bees knees at December 4, 2009 3:19 PM

I (also) like the approach you take to reviews, Drew. I love movies (of course, I spend all my time here), but am difficult to budge out of the house (too much trouble) but you really know how to get me interested.

Specifically, I feel like you're describing a second language that I speak well enough (I mean, I know what I like and what I don't like) but you offer a couple of new phrases and adjectives that remind me to take it a little further. I guess I dislike mental laziness (me like it, me just do), and I have to hand it to you for lobbing a few volleys out towards the layers of thought behind (some) films.

Posted by: replica at December 4, 2009 5:08 PM

Che, you blue furry ball of snark you! I was wondering where you were.

Posted by: , at December 5, 2009 1:22 AM

I was lucky enough to see an advanced screening with a Q&A with Reitman after.

I went in with pretty high expectations and they were exceeded. I can't think of another movie that has you laughing every two minutes only to smack you in the face with dramatic elements that rip your heart out of your chest. It's the definition of a dromedy and the acting was rock solid.

The film was amazing before Reitman explained some of the nuances that eluded me on first viewing. Now I just can't wait to go see it again.


Posted by: Walter at December 6, 2009 3:26 AM

The HOTTEST interracial club__MixedConnect *.* C O M___for black Women and white Men, or black Men and white Women, to interact with each other. Interracial is not a problem here, but a great merit to cherish!

Posted by: brantty at December 7, 2009 12:39 AM

Everyone has said the marketing did nothing for them; I guess the Rogue Wave in the trailer did it for me.
Saw a screening of it tonight. Love what you said about Reitman's choices. I'll definitely be seeing it again.

Posted by: nicole at December 11, 2009 4:34 AM

The movie was good although it started out light hearted with a good pace but then got a bit heavy and dragged a little. Did you mess up a few details in order to not-spoil the film? V. clever.

Posted by: surlysuzie at December 13, 2009 10:18 PM

good review. good movie. i just wonder why so many critics, when
referencing clooney's many outstanding roles, rarely mention
michael clayton which i considered a tour de force and stamped him as one of the best actors of our time.

Posted by: snake at December 14, 2009 5:16 PM

I though it was 10 million miles. Awesome movie

Posted by: Brian at December 25, 2009 1:58 PM

Pardon the nitpicking, but Ryan's aiming for TEN million frequent flier miles, not five million. Otherwise, the review is right on. I too was tepid about Vera Farmiga in The Departed, but she's excellent here. George Clooney is perfection, as always.

This is that rarity, a movie for and about grown-ups. My spouse wanted it to end differently, but I thought it was very satisfying as is.

Posted by: flickfan at December 25, 2009 5:25 PM

Finally got an opportunity to see Up in the Air, and...I'm underwhelmed. Damn, I hate getting bitten by high expectations! It was a tidy little movie, but the Oscar buzz attached to it has me wondering if this season is really that thin?

Perhaps I'm just too close to the subject matter to be entirely objective; I spent as much time nitpicking faults with the depiction of life on the road as I did with the weightier themes being considered. All in all, though, I felt like I was seeing it through a cracked lens. Things appeared almost right but were slightly askew -- be they travel experiences or relationships (to go into any more detail would be to enter spoiler territory). Oh well.

Posted by: Che Grovera at December 25, 2009 9:56 PM

ten million. ok sorry had to get that off my chest... back to the review!

Posted by: martin at December 26, 2009 8:39 PM

I agree with the majority opinion: that was a well written and thoughtful review. It caught the spirit of the film perfectly. You should feel free to consider this a pat on the back.

Posted by: martin at December 26, 2009 9:00 PM

I felt this film was extremely flimsy. When it wasn't right on the nose it was weightless. At least the title is appropriate.

Getting fired is bad. Having friends and family is good. Really? Quite the insight.

Clooney was a caricature of "Clooney" in the first half. His pitch perfect, single serving insights on airports and unfettered life are delivered on overdrive. Puke. It felt like a less funny and more charming Seinfeld routine set to indy rock.

After the Transformation of the Wedding his face turned into a morose, barely moving mask. Acting!

Anna Kendrick was interesting.

The use of actual people who had been fired felt manipulative and just reminded me of how vapid and empty the film was.

Posted by: Nathan at January 13, 2010 5:32 AM

The book may have had its own original tone, but as I was watching, the movie just felt like a cheap retread/mashup of "In Good Company" (which did the firing thing and what it does to people/an organization much better) and "Planes, Trains and Automobiles" (for the travel hassles/minutiae).

Then when I got home I realized it really stole the most, unwittingly or not, from "The Accidental Tourist" (type-A travel as life philosophy). The armchair with wings logo versus the empty backpack logo... travelling light... come on.

"Up in the Air" treads the same ground as all three, without the originality, tight storytelling or emotionally affecting characters of any of those three previous movies. It's fine to explore the same subject area, if you do it differently, or add something new. This is just an uninspired ripoff. Thin year for Oscar indeed.

Posted by: Ally at January 25, 2010 2:11 PM

I know this is a little late to be commenting on this thread. And who knows if anyone is reading. But I thought this movie was so weak. There is zero emotional depth. The performances are one-note. It's a beautifully shot self-conscious cliche. Any scenes that had so-called emotional impact were totally transparent. You can't play whiny indie music over a seen-it-a-millions times before scene (the wedding, the frantic running in the airport,the coming home deflated to an empty life/apartment...) and expect people to buy that they are being genuinely moved. It's a cheap trick. I'm totally not surprised that this underwhelming, vacant, overhyped waste of time and money has been nominated for an Oscar. Heck, it'll probably win. I mean, it WAS better than Crash, non?

Posted by: Schaetzle at February 2, 2010 3:20 PM





Post a comment

 (required)

 (required)


Preview of your comment:



Video ads popping up after each page view? Try clearing your browser's cookies.