Thursday, October 16, 2014

Up in the Air

Up in the Air

Phil and I discussed this movie and he described it as the perfect definition of a B+ movie. I knew this movie was nominated for Best Picture, so I assumed it’d be a bit higher (not that the Academy always does a great job). I had no idea what the movie was about until after I nominated it and realized I just nominated a rom com. I just don’t normally like rom coms and for a rom com to get over a B+ it really needs to do something extra in addition to merely being a believable story with believable relationships and believable people doing reasonable things. Rom coms usually fail at these things, especially on people acting in reasonable ways.

So I was presently surprised that this movie succeeds in breaking through the B+ ceiling, though I’m not certain it is actually a rom com.

I don’t care to go through the performances too terribly much here as everyone did a fantastic job. I still don’t know if Anna Kendrick is attractive or not, but I can say that she is definitely not attractive with the pulled back hair. But I guess that’s a bit misogynistic. But it’s not misogynistic to not how handsome George Clooney always is. (Even made fun of his eyebrows!) Whatever, I refuse to check my privilege at the door.

The relationships are what make this movie go beyond a B+.

I thought the dialogue here was superb. These characters interacted in natural ways. I thought the development between Kendrick and Clooney was impressive. I like that they didn’t necessarily agree with each other, though they definitely began to respect each other. That’s how real life works. I feel like on television that either you agree completely or you’re enemies. There’s no in-between. But in real relationships, it’s just not like that. (I also loved her line about not wanting to be anti-feminist. It sounds exactly like something any current recent college graduate might bring up. Bravo.)

I enjoyed the relationship between Clooney and Vera Farmiga’s character as the main love interest. It was an interesting role reversal to have Clooney missing all of the signs that she just wasn’t interested in a legitimate relationship. She was pretty blunt about what she expected and we just went along for the ride with Clooney. I thought they might be together and was ignoring the voice in the back of my end saying it wasn’t happening. I think we’ve all had a relationship like that. In the end, I love that she doesn’t apologize either. Just a “what the hell is wrong with you” despite the fact that she’s the adulterer. Another nice and realistic touch.

The next relationship is Clooney and his job. This is what he happily filled his time and soul with. His job was his identity, as it has been for countless people throughout history. It’s a relationship that he’s comfortable in and perhaps takes it for granted. He assumes it’ll always be there for him. But he’s ignoring that all relationships grow and change. As he’s firing all of these people, they keep saying how much time they’ve put in to their work. The time sacrificed. They sound like scorned lovers, taken by surprise that their significant others are leaving them for the cabana boy. They didn’t see it coming and their anger comes from all the time they thought they were building something. But a relationship is simply what you have in the moment. You don’t get to keep score. Clooney’s character is as blind to the fact that his job could change as the people that he was firing. He’s put in all this time and is building toward that frequent flyer mile goal, but his job doesn’t care. It’s growing and changing with or without him.

The final relationship is with Clooney and his family. Here he is, a jet-setter flying all over the country and visiting interesting places. He’s a big man. He’s successful and interesting. He motivates people. So here he comes home, a conqueror of the world. He expects to be lauded as a hero by his family. I LOVE that they don’t give a fuck at all. They don’t know him. Here’s another relationship where Clooney just isn’t being honest with himself. Eventually he gets his chance at saving the day and delivers a speech so well that he buys it himself, which is what really gets him in trouble with Farmiga. And he’s right. A job can keep you warm at night by paying the bills, but not as warm as someone in your bed. For most people, a job provides some fulfillment, but it’s the relationships, romantic or otherwise, that are truly fulfilling. Having those relationships is much more satisfying than hitting an arbitrary frequent flyer mark. This is why the family man in the suburbs driving a Dodge Stratus can be just as happy as Will Ferrell. Money/a job can make you more secure and comfortable, but it can’t do anything about you being lonely. (This reminds me a lot about addiction as well.)

Another theme I thought was important was the battle between new and old. This is a movie all about firing people as they’re no longer needed because the business is moving on to new things. It’s about Clooney’s job being updated to the modern era and being present only on a computer. We have a hard time embracing the new, though the new is always going to win out. (Here, Clooney’s job is merely saved temporarily by someone’s suicide, the change is inevitable.) I like that the movie showed us the importance of human interaction, but at the end of the day, a person fired is a person fired. It’s upsetting. Honestly, Kendrick’s business plan is an excellent one.

Speaking of the people being fired, adding people who had just been fired to explain how they feel was risky because not everyone is natural behind a camera. I could tell who the actors were, but that's because the non-actors were giving us real emotion and were more persuasive. Well done.

The last thing in the positives I’ll talk about is the camera work. I loved how slick and tight the shots of the travel were. It is Clooney’s fine-tuned ritual. He knows how it’s done by heart. And he can provide fantastically witty remarks and anecdotes to go along with the shots we’re seeing. But then when he begins to touch into his family, the director (Jason Reitman) goes to a hand held camera that is shaky and softer. I thought it wasn’t an easy path, but the Reitman succeeds here and the contrast is enjoyable.

For negatives, I got a little bored during the second song/montage. Long musical montages are just not my cup of tea.

Also, I didn’t like how he walked off of stage. This is the type of silliness normally seen in rom-coms. Had he said, “I have to go fill my bag with love you guys,” it would have ruined the movie. Glad he only quietly walks away. Glad they didn’t have him change his speech into something rousing on the fly as well. That’s been done and is just as silly. He should have done what we all do every Tuesday: Mail it the fuck in at work because you’re crazy distracted.

So, is this a rom com? Is my A- unreasonable? Am I overthinking the themes here? Did you guys notice the camerawork? Does anyone else feel like those little liquor bottles are cooler than pouring booze out of a big bottle? Would this be a good pint night selection? 


Good movie. Rewatchable. Enjoyable. A-

19 comments:

  1. I saw this movie a couple years ago and dont remember it well enough to do alot of commenting. Apparently I didn't remember it well enough to give it a grade on the spreadsheet. I remember thinking his job as a travelling in person firing expert was quite strange. George Clooney is a great actor especially when he seems to be playing himself. Shane, Anna Kendrick is hot, you're not sure because she's not the typical celebrity bombshell hot like ScarJo but if you met her in a bar she'd be a 10, maybe knocked down to an 8 because I'm assuming she's really into reading books while drinking coffee while wearing sweats and petting her overweight cat.

    Best I can do. I think it was good but wasn't particularly memorable, B.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. She is cute, but not hot. Which that is perfectly fine with me. But I hated that pulled back businesswoman 'do. That was unattractive. Then again, I suppose women are forced to de-sexualize in the professional world. Whereas I try to coif these curly locks in as sexy way as possible. Ladiiieessss.

      That said, no way I'd turn her down in a bar. That's a no-brainer. I'd let Drew buy her drinks all night and then swoop in for some nice consensual sex or heavy petting on a dirty couch in a hookah lounge. I mean, my standards aren't exactly high considering I took home anyone in Evansville. But, hey, YOLO.

      Delete
    2. Also, do you think you could take Clooney in a game of one-on-one? I've head he's got some skills.

      Delete
    3. You seem to have forgotten that I don't lose women when I'm heavily invested in them. Never underestimate my skills, jerkface!

      Delete
    4. 1 on 1 contest of picking up chicks in a bar Don Jon style? He's probably got the upper hand there. Maybe I can throw some shade on him talking about his old balls. If we're talking basketball I got 4 inches and 50 pounds on him and there's no way he can blow by me on the dribble at his advanced age. Play to 10 by 1's and 2's I get him 10-4 easy.

      Delete
    5. Anna Kendrick is fine, but she isn't "famous hot" or anything. I have a theory on this that I don't feel like getting into. In no world is she a 10 though.

      Delete
  2. I remember seeing this in theaters and being impressed by parts, but not too terribly into the whole package. Five years later, it was a much more enjoyable, introspective experience that hit me pretty hard. I felt like characters were directly speaking to me in a few places, something that elevated the film much higher, into the air, if you will.

    Background on economic issues subtly brought up here that Hartman is welcome to undercut me on. A big reason the recession hurt so much for the average person but not very much for the rich is because of how these two classes invest. Middle-class people sink their money into a home. Rich people obviously buy property, but a far greater percentage of their wealth goes into the stock market. The recession collapsed both assets from their inflated heights, but it's a long-term good thing when stocks go down. A person can buy more shares at a discount to their future worth. Not so much for the place you're living in. So when the layoffs came in 2008-09, the unfortunate average person is not only unemployed, but owes more on their home than what they paid for it. Their job search is limited to their current area because they can't sell their home without taking a huge loss.

    What's the point? Economic trends totally vindicate Ryan Bingham's whole philosophy. Don't set down roots. Be flexible and liquid and ready to go at a moment's notice. The future is cold and unpredictable, and stability is a foreign word in a post-recession economy. He should know, because he personally blows up worlds for a living, sending the remains on their way with sweet lies and corporate bromides. However, what's the benefit in being right? That's the question I think Up In the Air is asking.

    As the film goes along, director Jason Reitman arrives at no benefit at all. Natalie was right about the business but couldn't live with herself continuing in that career. Ryan will likely try and move past the events of the film, reaching for a point in his old life before he was confronted with what being right got him, which was nothing. The risk of being wrong, and therefore being churned up by the faceless economy, is leavened by the comfort that comes from putting down roots. The adaptability required to thrive is too much to ask for, even for an airborne warrior like Ryan.

    How did that shake me up so much? Well, I've been renting this apartment for 6.5 years, a decision which I am slowly starting to regret. I've made little effort to make Bloomington my own, such that I would have to call a taxi if I had to get picked up after anesthesia or something similar. By not committing to this part of my life, the creeping feeling is that I've wasted large portions of it. The money I could've poured into a home (and a tangible feeling of accomplishment) went instead into my stock portfolio, which, humblebrag, is doing spectacularly, but so what? I've got a lot of XBox Live achievements, but who cares? I get the 'standing at the flight schedule thingy' feeling sometimes. I enjoy the feeling of freedom that liquidity gives a person, but at what opportunity cost? I wrote down 'Don't judge me, Vera Farmiga' after Ryan said he didn't know his sister that well. I did the same thing when Danny McBride chided Ryan about home ownership. I agree, Ryan, photos are for people who can't remember. Am I a marginally-less attractive Ryan Bingham, mining insignificance for sustaining nuggets of joy?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love this review. Pretty awesome when a movie hits home like that. And I don't think it's a purely subjective thing. Good themes and good writing combined with good timing and you've hit some deep stuff.

      Also, you think this movie is a rom com or perhaps, as I've seen suggested elsewhere, it's a tragedy?

      Delete
    2. Woo, genre talk. I don't think it's a rom-com at all. If Alex was completely cut out of the film, Ryan's arc would be different, but his interactions with Natalie and his family could have resulted in the same film. The presence of romance doesn't automatically mean it's a romantic movie. I'd call it a character study because every scene either includes Ryan or is seen through his perspective. Then, I'd go workplace drama because of how central the job stuff is.

      I wouldn't call this a comedy in any way, shape, or form. My understanding of traditional comedy or tragedy is that it depends on the arc. This movie's about Ryan and his arc goes from a good place to a bad place, so tragedy. The opposite would be comedy. Comedies don't get to have sad endings.

      Delete
    3. 100% a character study. It's about a man and the evolution of his philosophies on life as shaped by his career and relationships.

      Delete
  3. Maybe. A little self-reflection is always good, and good on Reitman for giving it to me. I think he went into this wanting to make a timeless film that was still of the time it inhabits, and it succeeds at catching a historical moment while still being about universal truths. I got a lot of both aspects. I've been on both sides of the firing line, and it fucking sucks, so empathy was there for all parties, and I've already gone on about the other emotional aspects. Everything clicked for me in a way I was not expecting based on that initial viewing in 2009.

    Reitman is having a slow period right now, but he's firmly in my second tier of directors after Thank You For Smoking, Juno, Young Adult, and this. Into the bullet points, I love the early quick cuts communicating Ryan's efficiency. The overhead city shots are great and always interesting. San Francisco is a lot more compact than Omaha. The screwball-esque dialogue between Ryan and Alex is done very well, relying on Clooney and Farmiga's serious chemistry. Natalie is a recognizable person, with a strong cry-face and rapid delivery. So many shots stood out, like the emptying cube farm and the closet of office chairs. The pinnacle is Natalie, with her back turned to the camera, wordlessly and soundlessly on the moving sidewalk. I paused it, it was so perfect and beautiful. I also have to mention that, yes, the Luxor was a shithole in 2009, but it's been much improved since then. Lastly, I loved every montage, as they were well done enough to never wear out their welcome.

    I don't have any proper negatives, but some things stick out. The card-comparing doesn't need such overt dick metaphors. It's clear as is. The older sister is called 'the glue' while gluing, and it's too cute by half. I wish Reitman saved the first encounter with Ryan's apartment til after he gets back from the wedding. To be confronted with its starkness after the wedding's warmth would have been a serious jolt. Lastly, the recommendation to Natalie's new employer is too tidy. It's sold as the tipping point, when that seems too easy.

    I'll save the rest of my copious notes for free-for-all. I'm ready to defend Alex if anyone talks to much shit about her. I was seriously moved by Up In the Air. For people living the opposite of my life, I could imagine being just as moved. Danny McBride's concerns about marriage being a commitment not just to a person, but a path might be equally unnerving. At the end of the day, as Ryan says, there is no point, which is an accurate statement. The cosmic "why" is a futile question with a cold answer, though there's probably a lot to be said for walking into oblivion together. A-

    ReplyDelete
  4. To quote Riley, "I saw this movie a couple years ago and dont remember it well enough to do alot of commenting. " Thought I would make "a lot" two words and probably put an apostrophe in "don't."

    From what I remember, I don't understand the draw of this movie. I'm probably bias against corporate culture movies, but I'm ok with that. None of the characters really do much and they interact realistically, but that doesn't mean it's a great movie.

    This could be an Eternal Sunshine movie for me where you really have to dig to find some sort of meaning. I'm either unwilling to do it, or this movie doesn't inspire me to do it.

    Boring. C.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Found an HBO Go account.

      10 minutes in...

      Delete
    2. What do you mean you have to dig to find some meaning? I don't think it's buried too deep here, or in Eternal Sunshine. What's a Hartman example of a movie whose theme is exactly apparent enough?

      Delete
  5. Good pick, Shane. Really enjoyed it.

    This movie was made for the economic downturn in 2008. I was, in large part, unaffected by it but my family was not as lucky as me. I felt the pain of those people being fired and it is entirely patronizing and rude for someone outside of the situation to say "Well, that's economics." Same thing goes for outsourcing. "But it's the free market." Yeah, way to be a comfort, jerkass.

    Anyway, the emotion from the responses and the professionalism Ryan displays when he delivers the news was spot on. We do not know how long he held that job but he clearly had enough experience to know what to say and when to hand out the packets. He was great and there are few movies where he is not.

    His chemistry with Natalie and Alex were well defined. We knew there would be no gray area with Natalie. She was the learner and he the teacher. She learned a lot from him. Side note, did anyone else find it ironic that she left the company the same way she was dumped? Nice. Also, her cry in the hotel lobby was great. The awkward, loud cry was believable.

    His relationship with Alex appeared to be simple and clear and from his - and our - perspective, it was. For all he knew, she was a single lady. In her eyes, he was the fuck buddy but his failure to interpret that is not entirely his fault. They never defined the parameters of the relationship. How did she not know that he fell for her when he invited her to his sister's wedding? Furthermore, how did he not see that he was pushing it too far with that invitation after she first declined it? How did he not understand the term "call me when you're lonely" does not mean "leave the speech of your dreams and fly out to see me?" At the same time, if he was only sex to her why did she agree to be his date to the wedding? While we are at it, why describe his basic appearance in front of him when asked by a young adult what to look for in a guy? Ahhh! This is why communication and parameters are key in all forms of relationship.

    What bothered me the most was that Alex refused to apologize. She clearly led on Ryan to believe something else was to happen and when he attempted to be cute, he found the truth. What Alex did is the equivalent to Dick Cheney shooting his friend in the face and making him apologize for it.

    This is not to say that Ryan let himself to be led on by Alex because he did. He never had that kind of interaction or feelings for a woman and liked it. He thought it was love when it was just sex and for the first time he could not separate the two. His response to their last phone conversation was - well - awesome. At that point, there is nothing left to say. If the person who is in the wrong fails to see the wrong and apologize for it, the conversation and "relationship" is finished. As I eluded to earlier, both Ryan and Alex were at fault for that. Had they communicated, the near explosion could have been avoided.

    I do not know if I can call this a romance comedy because romance did not dominate the film. For me, relationships did. I am unsure if a category correctly fits Up in the Air. Regardless, I liked it and would recommend it. Solid choice.

    + Acting
    + Believable storyline
    + Real situations
    - Couple of cheesy love spots

    Grade: A-

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, Alex was in the wrong, but she owed nothing to Ryan. She was in the wrong in how she treated her family. I thought she drew the line, but Ryan wasn't looking for it because Ryan loves Ryan and was applying Ryan standards. Did she lie? I don't think so. Maybe by omission. For Alex, this is a different life. She has the husband and kids at home and she wants to have an adult fling on the side. Maybe she doesn't owe Ryan an apology and I liked that she didn't apologize. It's more realistic because people just don't apologize enough in real life. They'll justify things in any way that they can.

      Delete
    2. I thought it was a great touch her texting her resignation. Good call.

      Delete
  6. Finally! Sorry this is so delayed.

    I liked this movie. I'm not a huge fan of Anna Kendrick...like at all. I find her super annoying (Pitch Perfect AND Twilight. Some pretty awful career decisions right there). But I guess in this movie it kind of works since she is supposed to be annoying, young and naive. The scene where Natalie is talking with Ryan and Alex after her boyfriend breaks up with her is beyond depressing. Her laundry list of "qualities" that her ideal partner should have is insane and the problem with most women looking for relationships these days. Who the fuck cares what kind of car he drives?! She was content to settle as long as she could paint a picture of the perfect life. She was even willing to sacrifice her own happiness, as long as it all looked good from the outside. I like that Natalie doesn't get totally jaded by Ryan's outlook on life. She seems to rub off on him in a good way (making him more idealistic about love) and he seems to rub off on her in an equally good way (getting her to let her hair down and party with those crazy tech kids).

    George Clooney is fine. I think I might be one of the only women in the world who hasn't drank the Clooney Kool-Aid. I don't really see the appeal...Ryan's character is sad, but there are plenty of people just like him out there. I get that some people just like to travel, like to live out of a suitcase. But you have to enjoy your life as well, and he just slowly realized he was miserable by the end of the movie. I wish at the end when he was standing in front of the board we could have seen him make a decision to go somewhere exotic and off the cuff (I know it's implied...but I just wanted to know where he went). When he finally takes the plunge to visit Alex in Chicago he has this perfect little bubble burst when he discovers she has a family and a whole life that he never knew existed.

    This whole scene shocked me. She's married?! I get that they have an "arrangement" and that they both seem to be commitment-phobes, but I never saw it coming that she had a family and was totally using Ryan as an escape. Her character is an awesome departure from the typical female in movies. She isn't dying to get married and have this picture perfect life. She wants to use Ryan for sex with no strings attached.

    I remember hearing about the end of this movie when it first came out, how they interviewed actual people who had just been laid off to get their perspectives. I liked this little addition. Made it hit home. Ryan giving his sister and the dude from Eastbound and Down the round trip tickets at the end was predictable. I agree that the scene where he walked off stage was dumb. It was too cheesy...a guy who cared that much about his career would never just walk off stage. Too out of character.

    Shane- definitely not a rom com in my book. More of just a drama I suppose? I like your assessment that this movie is just made of relationships. Basically broken down into three basic parts: the relationship with co-workers (Natalie), significant others and then finally family. Each interaction is unique and seems to grow him as a person throughout the movie.

    I liked it. B+. It didn't really seem to have the same emotional effect on me that it did on some of you and I don't really want to watch it again. Slightly too depressing. But then again I think I've learned the "live your life to the fullest" lesson pretty well on my own the past couple of years.

    ReplyDelete
  7. First off, just have to comment that I loved Kissel’s review. Any of these reviews that have a sort of personal connection always are more interesting. There are several people out there like that, who assume a place is just a stop, and then all the sudden they’ve been there longer than they ever expected. OK, on to the review proper…

    Since this was my second viewing, I knew the big twist of Alex’s family. Since most of us have already discussed that relationship, I just wanted to add that watching the movie with that knowledge actually made it far more interesting. Everything Alex does struck me as logical with this knowledge going in. A woman getting emotionally involved might have freaked out when she saw her road lover comforting a woman nearly half her age. Alex not giving a shit made perfect sense in her character. This almost broke it through the B+ ceiling I had told Shane, but a couple things left it right in that B+.

    The big thing that left it there was the Ryan/Natalie relationship. Natalie never strikes me as real in a movie extremely grounded in reality. Everything she does in the airport initially is something a stupid alien would do… No idea why this scene bothered me so much. Ryan writing the recommendation letter at the end didn’t strike me as genuine either. Do you ever get the sense that she actually did get better at that job? I sure didn’t – she definitely grew as a character, and she winds up with the most positive change of anyone in the movie if you ask me, but nothing here suggests Ryan would right such a glowing review.

    Speaking of the ending… Not a huge fan. It’s been said already, but Ryan’s main transformation is learning that any life choice has it’s pluses and minuses, and it seems that he’s stuck in a place where he thought he was happy. He grows as a character, but I don’t feel like we got the same level of closure with him that we did with Natalie. You could make an argument that this movie is really about Natalie’s growth as much as it is Ryan’s journey.

    Most of the pluses I’m on board with. Cast was great, everyone was fantastic, and the stuff with the real people being let go was really good. So I didn’t change my grade in the end, but I’m glad I rewatched it. Nice choice Shane.

    + Acting was great
    + Relationships and characters felt real…
    - Except Natalie to a small extent
    - Ending just felt off

    Grade: B+

    ReplyDelete