|
|
Up in the Air
Worse comes to worst
2009
Review: January 8, 2010
Director: Jason Reitman
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, Jason Bateman
If you like, not needed.
THE SETUP:
Independent loner guy begins to see the value of human connection.
DISCUSSION:
So it’s beginning to look like a contest between this and The Hurt Locker for the best film of the year, as far as the majority of critics are concerned. I actually saw the first half of The Hurt Locker and its main character made me so ANGRY I decided I didn’t want to watch the rest of the film. Of course now that’s making me feel like I should go back and suffer through it all, as if it succeeded in having an effect like that… Anyway, so there’s a question of which of these two films taps the zeitgeist of 2009, and, without having seen Hurt Locker to completion, I must say pick Up in the Air as my zeitgeist-nailer of 2009, for reasons I’ll discuss later. It’s also a generally good, funny, mainstream movie.
The film begins with a blues version of “This Land is Your Land” appearing over aerial photography of the United States. Throughout the film, each city our protagonist visits will be introduced with an aerial view of the city. We then have a voice-over from George Clooney as Ryan, whose job is to travel to whatever company hires him and he fires people so that the employees' real boss doesn’t have to. He has What he wants most is just to deliver the news and get the employee to take a packet with their package in it with the minimum amount of fuss—none, if possible. And he has honed his skills over the years, like saying certain lines he uses again and again, such as “Every great person was once where you are,” and all sorts of things designed to move them in and out without them making a scene—a scene which they may have every right to make. He’s also there to keep them from asking pointed questions, some of which might be quite valid, and to keep them from becoming angry and showing their anger to someone who might be responsible for it. He acknowledges “We take people at their most vulnerable and we set them adrift.” So he’s an example of classic American weasliness, lack of responsibility and productivity running roughshod over humanity—and this is our HERO.
He also describes how he is happiest traveling. He sidelines as a motivational speaker and talks about how your possessions and your relationships weigh you down, and you should unload as many of them as you can. “The slower we move, the faster we die,” he says. He tells us the last year he spent 322 days on the road and “43 miserable days at home.” He enjoys the false way airline workers are prompted via computer to tell him they’re delighted to see him again. His sister calls to ask him to take pictures for his niece’s wedding, introducing the topic by saying “I know how you are about doing things for others.” During this time Ryan hooks up with Vera Farmiga as Alex, who travels as much as he does. They agree to have completely non-committed, fun-only sex.
Ryan’s boss calls all his workers in to hear the idea of a 23 year-old bright employee, Natalie Keener, who has the idea to fire people by videophone. This will completely eliminate the company’s travel budget and keep people like Ryan constantly home [in Omaha, Nebraska]. She says their company has to become “Glocal,” that is, global in reach but local in presentation, or something like that. It soon becomes clear that she has read and memorized all the management books and their strategies but has little real-world experience in dealing with people.
Ryan objects, not only because this innovation would ruin his lifestyle, but because firing people by videophone is more inhumane than his method, which already sucks. His protests result in the assignment to take Natalie with him on the road to give her some practical experience and prove that her system WON’T work.
Then follow a bunch of little episodes and incidents that resonate with many of the issues brought up. Natalie is eager to try her hand at firing someone, and the first woman she gets tells her calmly that she’s going to kill herself. One of the best little scenes comes when Alex joins them, and they learn that Natalie’s boyfriend has broken up with her by text message, and “wants to c other people.” “Kind of like firing people over the Internet,” Ryan observes. There is then a good little exchange in which Natalie talks about what she wants in a mate—things like nice eyes and a particular brand of SUV—then Alex talks about the things important to you in a mate once you’re over 40.
A twist arrives in that he has to go to Omaha for his niece’s wedding, which he invites Alex to join him on. The groom gets cold feet, and Ryan finds himself in the position of having to convince him to marry and form this bond, which is completely against what he feels for himself. This trip also brings him close to Alex, and they seem to be getting very comfortable in their relationship with each other. It continues, but the movie still has a few twists in store, and may not end quite as snugly as it sounds like it might from what you’ve heard so far.
So the movie is a good, popular entertainment. It touches on contemporary events and wrings good ironies out of new technology and what it’s doing to human connection, and suchlike. At a little distance, however, it seems a little constructed to do exactly that. Ryan is a novelistic creation, and it’s unlikely that someone so averse to human relationships would be quite so articulate and comfortable with it; he’s been created to express a point of view. Furthermore the wrinkle at work and his assignment to take Natalie on the road [he has to teach her the skills for a job that is to be eliminated?] ring of storytelling creations. Not that this is entirely bad, it’s just that one is aware that this entire thing is a construction meant to express several points. Any novel or film is, it’s just that if done really well, one is less aware of it.
But what I think sets this movie apart and makes it really clang on the zeitgeist bell is something that may not have been entirely planned by the filmmakers. The point of the movie itself seems to be that human connection is important. Many have pointed out that it really captures the moment in terms of so many people being out of work right now. But to me, what this movie really successfully captures that is what’s going on in America and the world right now is that things are terrible and inhuman, and it becomes a struggle to fight for an option that is LESS terrible and inhuman than the proposed one. Ryan is a symptom of a society that has let the bottom line run roughshod over humanity—how poorly can we treat people and still get away with it—and although he’s the hero of our film, he’s still the shell of a human being doing a truly weaselly job. Then someone comes along with a proposal that would make things even MORE inhumane and impersonal, which management loves because it would save so much money [and the people on the receiving end, the ones who do the actual work, can go screw], and the movie becomes a struggle defending the old, horrible system against the new, worse system. To me this sums up what’s happening in the world right now, in which we’re all aware that every piece of clothing we buy is produced by a poor worker in another country, every trip we take anywhere is hurting the environment, everything we do harms someone else and ourselves in the long term. Which is not to mention the ethos in America that the bottom line is the be all and end all and must always trump humanity—just the other day there were articles revealing a law in place since the 60s that if a company uses a chemical it KNOWS will harm people, it can continue using it and just not TELL anyone... if it believes telling people will cut into profits. Turns out there are about 55,000 undisclosed chemicals in use around us right now. So—are we supposed to feel that progress is being made because we now, after four decades, are reviewing this law? This movie resonates with these larger issues, the choice between bad and worse, which may not have been wholly intended, but make it more than the jaunty comedy about human connection it purports to be.
At the same time, it’s a good straightforward comedy you can take your mom to and both be engaged and have your brain gently prodded, then go shopping and get something to eat. So much as I hate to agree with others, this really is the movie of the year.
SHOULD YOU WATCH IT?
Yes, you probably should.
