Up in the Air

A CYNCIAL DEPARTURE

You want to hate the characters in this film. Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) flies over 350,000 miles a year firing employees at companies whose bosses don’t “have the balls” to sack their own. He’s a work-a-holic loner. The most important things to Ryan: his American Airlines concierge key card, and accruing enough miles to get his name on the side of a plane.

Up in the Air is a comedy that takes itself seriously. It’s a drama that laughs at each uncomfortable situation in which its characters find themselves. Ryan’s boss (played by the always comically flawless Jason Bateman) excitedly embrace’s America’s economic ruin, telling his employees, “this is our moment.” But there’s a ruthlessness Ryan lacks that endears him to us.

A young, recent college graduate named Natalie (Anna Kendrick) threatens his way of life by introducing a more efficient way of letting people go – via internet ichat. When Ryan’s boss orders him to show Natalie the ropes of firing people on the road, the pair jet off across the country. Forced to endure each other’s company, the eager girl full of hope and the jaded cynic learn lessons from each other in ways only opposites could. The characters in this film are so detached from feeling, so isolated – we want them to change.

Ryan’s biggest threat for change comes in the form of a beautiful, feisty female traveler named Alex (thank you, Vera Farmiga). In a film brimming with excellent performances, Farmiga’s is the stellar, stand-out one of them all. The maturity Farmiga brings to Alex is seamless - witty and intelligent. She and Ryan bond over their shared knowledge of rental car companies and trade stories of life on the road, beginning a one-night stand hotel relationship whenever their schedules land them in nearby cities. The two are dangerously similar – unattached incarnate. Perfect for each other.

The honesty of the movie can be found in scenes where we get to see the characters exploring unchartered territory within themselves: Natalie getting drunk and solving her problems with sex, Alex describing her (less-than-perfect) version of the perfect man over airport drinks, Ryan attempting to talk his future brother-in-law out of cold feet on his wedding day. And when the scenes are honest, Up in the Air is a fine example of heartwarming and clever, cynical comedy.

I’d be remiss to ignore giving major kudos to this film’s director. Jason Reitman (who brought us 2007’s Juno) is part of a very small, elite group of writer-directors who have overcome their famous family label to gain respect for their work. Reitman again proves himself worthy of acclaim with this piece, candidly illustrating the beauty in altogether uncomfortable, awkward situations.

This isn’t a movie that crescendos from beginning to end. There is a lack of tension at the end of the film that is settling. Reitman’s intelligent storytelling assumes that his audience can make up its own mind as to whether these characters have changed or not. I have to say that I love films where the catharsis is implied. For characters whose professional lives could be altogether defined as “successful,” how much of what really matters to them is “up in the air?” You’re intelligent. You decide.

I'd take that with a grain of salt. At the Critic's choice awards where it won best adapted screenplay. The first version was written by fella the name of SHELDON TURNER. Then Reitman "improvised" his own vision of the book.

It took a lot of fricking Chutzpah for Reitman to go on stage and thank the universe and totally ignore his fellow screenwriter standing right beside him as they accepted their award. Tacky. Tacky. Tacky.

Let's just say that I don't think the film would've been nominated for so many Oscars/GG/etc had he not been Ivan Reitman's son.

It's a big jump from "I don't like it" to "it only got nominated because of nepotism." It was almost universally loved among critics and audiences...so that might have something to do with it.

I don't thing the SAG really remembers Ivan Reitman when considering Oscar nominees, that's just a strange complaint. Jason Reitman has earned his own with two (now three) well made films.

Furthermore, a better complaint would've been "I don't think the film would've been nominated had it not been for its relevance to today's society" though that would take the point out of it, wouldn't it

This movie is just vulgar. It, and Juno, are two of the most unremarkable films ever made to get so many awards. You can tell from the cliches in the OP's review (which was otherwise very well written) what I mean by the rest of my post.

>You want to hate the characters in this film.

>Up in the Air is a comedy that takes itself seriously.

People like this film, because it is simple, undemanding, and familiar. Everything that occurs within either this film or Juno is a cliche that tries to be new. Hackneyed tripe is one term. Not that I respect the originator. The critical success of these awful reels of trash come from the fact that people like doing something the same way but feeling like it is new. That's what these films are. Formula films. It's like verse/refrain structure in music. Same sh*t. Different people doing it. (And to the ******** who'll point out how Ozu is nothing but formula... he wasn't.)

Only this time it's "relevant", because it's about our economy.

How?

The messages of both films are terrible. They use the familiar formula to spoonfeed the audience a slew of consistently conservative propagandistic themes. I hate how this film begs worker complacency in such an obvious way. The woman who killed herself is not mourned. It is suggested that it is not Natalie's fault that she died. It is suggested in a way that makes it seem "natural". As if some things just cannot be helped. The entire job of the main character is a worker complacency program. The institution is shown to be difficult on the people doing the firing. It points to the reactions of the people being fired for ridicule. The one serious firing involving Juno's Dad actually points to firing as a good thing. The reality of the times is the woman who killed herself, but this was reduced as a plot device to cause drama.

Also, I don't see how this

>Reitman’s intelligent storytelling assumes that his audience can make up its own mind as to whether these characters have changed or not.

can be taken seriously. Did Clooney changing his speech at the end not make this clear enough for you? Everything was utterly spoonfed, and if any point was left unclear, you can easily extrapolate it from the structure of the cliche permeating the content.

This film should be somewhere around a 5.5-6.0/10, but it is so vapid, vulgar and unfairly lauded, it makes me sick to even give it that much credit.

Utter garbage.

__________________
"Loves them? They need them, like they need the air."

You're right, it might have.... But I don't think so.

I see you're just assuming that I don't like it. Actually, I did like it. But it's the chemistry between the main three protagonists that gets this film through, IMO, because there's little else there apart from obvious plotting, adequate writing and faux 'life lessons.'

Considering that many people think that the Oscars is more to do with politics and advertising budgets than the quality of the film, I don't think it's a strange complaint at all. I'd also point out that it wasn't a complaint, but an observation. And, lastly, if you think writer/director/producer Ivan Reitman doesn't have any friends in Hollywood that'd be more than happy to throw their vote behind his son, then you're naive and, tbh, I'd actually envy you.

It's a strange complaint because, as you said, it's a purely political system, of which gave Up In The Air a nod because Juno had one as well, and Thank You For Smoking was famous at festivals everywhere. It has nothing to do with Ivan, he hasn't done anything that's gone noticed in a long time

You don't think being beloved by critics and audiences helps a film win awards? I find that difficult to believe.

If you need more reason, how about tossing in a top-tier actor like Clooney? That tends to help films get noticed and considered.

Point being, there are any number of reasons for its praise that are a lot more likely than simple nepotism. Hell, I doubt there's a film that gets made that doesn't have someone's son or cousin in some part of the process, so even if nepotism were rampant you'd have to figure out whose family ties take precedences.

If I had to assume, I would have guessed you didn't like it, but whether you disliked it or just didn't love it, my response wouldn't have changed much.

I'm not sure what's "faux" about the "life lessons." When you boil all sorts of great films down to their essence, they look simple enough. I think all films dress up relatively simple messages, because the moral of any given story can only be so nuanced or complicated at its core. It doesn't sound exciting to say its a movie about a man who chooses to live alone, tries to change, and realize it's too late. But its the execution and things like -- as you say -- the chemistry of the characters, that make it good or bad.

The mere fact that...




There's a selection bias here, because there are people who are related to other people all throughout the industry; but we don't usually see the ones who go nowhere...because they went nowhere. By definition, the ones we're going to be talking about here are the ones who were worth a damn.

Anyway, there's quite a difference between having friends who might have some affinity for Reitman's son, and suggesting that it only won awards because of it. I think what nepotism exists is generally more about opportunity, but that's just my opinion.

The main thing is the coincidence, though: we'd have reason to be skeptical if the film were not praised by so many people who clearly don't have a connection to the Reitmans, not to mention moviegoers in general, other film festivals, etc. What you're suggesting is technically possible, but a) I don't think we have any actual evidence for it, and b) all the praise the film has gotten from other sources, critics, and audiences would have to be basically coincidental, unless you think the nepotism is so explicit and shrewd that the people involved deliberately waited to make sure the film was loved by everyone first.

The movie is a tragedy about estrangement, loneliness, callousness of modern business, and skewed goals in life. All increasingly relevant topics these days. And it's well-shot, features our top leading man, good acting all around, and it's cleverly written. Maybe that's why it got acclaim. Just sayin....

__________________
Under-the-radar Movie Awesomeness.
http://earlsmoviepicks.blogspot.com/

Hey, you could all be right. You probably are. I just didn't think it was good enough for a Best Director nod and knowing how 'seriously' some Academy members take voting, I have no trouble thinking that Ivan made a phone call or two.

I didn't think it was cleverly written, I'm not even sure it was that well acted. I just think the chemistry between them was fantastic. I liked the film because it charmed me, not because I thought it was really good. Clooney especially was effortlessly likeable. Maybe it's I felt less for it because I saw everything coming. The things that Yoda mentioned in the spoiler I thought were blindingly obvious, as were the things behind them.

Whatever the case, I liked it but I didn't think it showed much beyond the three principal actors. Also, while I know I don't find comedies funny, who the hell was laughing at this?

You have to take what honey says with a grain of salt though. He knows everything that happens in most of the movies he's never seen. But TV and Stand-Up, they surprise and entertain him much more. That's just the way it goes sometimes.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

Woah! I'm a liar now, mark?

I don't know if you've read what I've written above, but I've seen Up In The Air and, while I think I know which films I will and won't like without seeing them, I don't think I've said that I know everything that happens in them.

The previous argument wasn't about our opinion, but rather how the film came to be nominated. I'd agree the directing wasn't anything special, but again, it's the Oscars, an extremely useless ceremony

I think the whole point of it was showing those three actors and how they changed (or specifically for two of them, didn't change). Also, there were parts I laughed a lot at, I just couldn't tell you which because it was a long time ago

If my saying that someone has to take what honey says with a grain of salt makes honey a liar, then I'm an *******, and everyone here, including me, can all agree. I'm sorry if that's what you got from it but if so, my "sorryness" doesn't make me any less of an *******.

What a dick response

Please, can everyone settle down here? I didn't mean to ignite this flame war. I was just saying that I didn't see the end and someone else did -- which happens often with me. Everybody take a deep breath and relax a bit.

ITT: mark f, huEg assssHOllllllllle
EDIT: slightly less of a hUEG aSShOLLEeeeeee

===

I don't think this film is DEEP or NEW or ORIGINAL even though it tries to be. I think that's why it sucks. It also fooled everyone into thinking that it was all those things. That makes it an actual crime.

There is no flame war. I said I was an *******. That's all I said. I mean, I said I'm sorry but when an ******* says he's sorry it doesn't mean much. I really don't see any flame war here.

mark f wrote: it is inconsistent to enjoy sitcoms and also expect to be surprised by films

IS ALL; continue from here...