George Clooney in Up in the Air

Getting fired sux, but Jason Reitman says u will b OK l8r

A A A Comments (13) By J. Hoberman Tuesday, Dec 1 2009

Up in the Air goes down like a sedative. This is a movie that's easy to like—and to dislike as well. Less adapted from than inspired by Walter Kirn's 2001 novel, Jason Reitman's third feature is a glibly serious comedy about a professional terminator. George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, corporate road warrior and hired gun, living out of a stowable wheeled suitcase and flying first-class city to city, or rather company to company, discharging redundant workers. It's a job and the joke is, he loves it.

Dale Robinette

Frequent-flier benefits: Clooney and Farmiga

Details

Up in the Air
Directed by Jason Reitman
Paramount Pictures
Opens December 4

More About

Of course, however cool, personable, and deft at running the airport-security gauntlet, Bingham is an antihero—even more successfully alienated than the tobacco lobbyist protagonist of Reitman's debut, Thank You for Smoking, he moonlights, giving motivational lectures on avoiding commitment. Thus, in a conciliatory nod to the people, Up in the Air opens cannily with an orchestrated j'accuse. A rainbow montage of the newly laid off address their tormentor (and the audience) in tight close-up and tones ranging from pathetic ("This is what I get for 30 years at this company?") to belligerent ("Who the fuck are you!?").

Sound familiar? Up in the Air is the most topical Hollywood release of the season, a far more scarifying disaster film than 2012 or The Road. "This is our moment," Bingham's boss (an appropriately odious Jason Bateman) exults before dropping the bomb. His new protégée, Natalie Keener, a scarily confident 23-year-old efficiency expert (briskly played by professional go-getter Anna Kendrick), has developed a scheme in which firings will be handled in a central office by something like Skype. Now it's Bingham's job that's in peril—or rather, his lifestyle.

Like Reitman's Juno, Up in the Air has a boom-boom-bada-boom pace and an impersonal, emphatic style. Reitman's screenplay, co-written with Sheldon Turner, is a veritable minibar of bite-size one-liners. The tone is sassy—as when Bingham picks up and beds his female equivalent (Vera Farmiga) after a prolonged flirtation conducted in the language of car rentals. The movie is like its protagonist, traveling light through a succession of sterile environments, just fast enough to short-circuit thought.

Bingham is the ultimate moving target. His cynicism is indistinguishable from his sincerity—especially once the plot turns. The key moment comes when Bingham intervenes in Natalie's bungled firing of a plainspoken, salt-of-the-earth type (none other than Juno's dad and Reitman axiom J.K. Simmons). Bingham expresses empathy. This proud connoisseur of food-court sushi is meant to have feelings! Clooney may be the ultimate smoothie, as charming as any actor since Cary Grant, but he's unable to pivot, at least as his character is written. Similarly, Up in the Air is most tiresome when it decides to get "real," shifting location to Bingham's northern Wisconsin hometown. The fake folk rock used to score his kid sister's wedding accentuates the movie's essential disconnect.

Up in the Air means to be a critique of how we live now: Social networking is a substitute for intimacy that's just as phony as Bingham's doctrine of emotional self-sufficiency. Natalie's cruel scheme for online firing suggests an updated gag from Chaplin's Modern Times but it's hardly outlandish. (I have a colleague who was fired on a conference call.) But like Juno, Up in the Air conjures a troubling reality and then wishes it away.

The filmmakers have peeked into the abyss and averted their eyes—ignoring the possibility that, to paraphrase Christopher Lasch's Haven in a Heartless World, the precise socioeconomic forces that necessitated private life as refuge, had long ago invaded that sanctuary. To lose your job in America is to risk losing everything. As articulated by the movie's several subplots and clinched with a concluding rainbow montage in which the unemployed extol the comfort of their loved ones, the cruelties of the free market can be ameliorated by a sentimental faith in Family Values. Up in the Air warns that you can't go home again—and then, full of false cheer and false consciousness, pretends you can.

Religion may not be an option in Reitman's world, but there's an underlying supernaturalism to its premise. Clever little Juno was the Christmas cherub of 2007 and Bingham is a spiritual creature as well—a sad one, like the seraph in Wings of Desire who yearns to be human. Somewhere over Dubuque, 10 million air miles into his quest, he realizes that his is an existential fate—he is the capitalist system's angel of death. And yet, a satire unsullied by anger, Up in the Air floats above the pain.

Check out this week's featured ad for Movies

CAVO CAFE LOUNGE

View Ad View Website

More Ads >>

Email
to Friend

Write to
Editor

Print
Article

Jack 01/14/2011 4:49:00 PM

Penetrating, smart review. Best I've read on this film.
Hugh Goring 06/26/2010 8:03:00 AM

Ah, far too harsh J. Hoberman What is it about critics that have to be so superior. This was, as far as I was concerned a great, grown up, adult movie. It had that wonderful combination of wit, insight and really good acting. I sat in my local cinema thinking of all the people who came to see George Clooney in his latest film and got a bit of a surprise. This was grown up film making and I loved it. It is always a bit of a give away when film critics reference too many obscure films and other critics and your critic did it in spades. I give them four out of ten for living in the real world, but six out of ten for effort Hugh
Lucinda Dickey 04/20/2010 7:30:00 PM

Right on J. Hoberman! I haven't felt like such a cheesy movie has pulled the wool over so many eyes since "The Sixth Sense"...
Steve Dodson 04/15/2010 3:44:00 AM

Thank you. How refreshing. A negative review of "Up in the Air." One critic that didn't jump on the bandwagon. Thank you.
Rhonda 02/19/2010 5:58:00 AM

I know one thing - I will never read a review by Hoberman again. I have never before seen someone come through as so absolutely full of himself. This review is a string of complete and utter crap, to put it nicely, regardless of whether one liked or disliked the film! You apparently pride yourself on linking together god-awful phrases - but at the expense of the reader. It is incredibly cumbersome. Hey - novel idea - learn the art of being concise! Or maybe even clear! Oh sorry, one must be a skilled writer in order to understand those concepts. It's no wonder you disagree with other reviewers - you are so impressed with yourself that you can't see beyond your own ego. You are no better than the worst movie.
Greg 02/01/2010 8:42:00 PM

Thank you for your review. I couldn't have said it better, which is why I'm here and you're there. I laughed once. I was cringing during the "northern Wisconsin" scenes. It wasn't even good stereotyping. Guy with cold feet on his wedding day reads "The Velveteen Rabbit" and decides to go through with it after an insincere jerk he's met once spouts a few cliches at him? I don't think so. The director should have gone all in and set that scene in a bowling alley bar with the nervous dude wearing his blaze-orange hunting jacket over his tuxedo.
gary 01/31/2010 4:58:00 AM

I weary of critics trying so hard to be more erudite to most readers, to portray themselves as more insightful, studied and intelligent than most readers. I cannot help but be reminded of the definition of the critic provided by one of my college professors as the eunich at a gang bang. I create, you denegrate. Oh, how much I would enjoy being the Bingham terminating your employment!
Justin 01/30/2010 10:38:00 AM

After so many positive reviews, we got a babysitter ($$) and went to see "Up in the Air" ($). This movie is not a comedy. Neither in the classical sense that there is a happy ending or the central character's romance ends in marriage nor in the sense that the laughs are really so few. It's really a cautionary drama with a few light moments. I won't get into the snide tone at the expense of Wisconsin and other fly over states nor the schmaltzy use of music. The marketing has been completely misleading. Shame on you, Paramount Pictures. I do appreciate what Reitman jr. was trying to do, but the film does not succeed, especially narratively. It's got a polished look, some nice cinematography, four decent acting scenes, but the story is paper thin. Granted it does bring unemployment in America now into the cinema, but that's not enough to justify it's theft of time and money. The parts don't add into a whole. It is not worth $12.50, plus babysitter, so save it for a rainy rental, at most. I am writing this comment only because I really want to commend J. Hoberman for being one of the few reviewers to see beyond the "emperor's clothing". He is one of a few reviewers to see this film for what it is. The film has a 92 rating on Rotten Tomatoes if one can believe it. It seems at time like critics have forgotten that they are supposed to be writing for us, the audience, who will spend their money and consider going to see a particular film, not being Hollywood's lap dog. Thank you, Mr. Hoberman. How could so many reviewers like this film. If reviewers had to pay to see films, rather than go to free screenings, perhaps they would be better critics. "Thank you for not smoking" and "Juno" weren't fantastic, but they were by far better films. The Ray Bingham character is aimless, except momentarily, and thus so is the story. The Reitman's owe us babysitting money. Please, for all that you might hold holy in films with passion or at least a story to tell that warrants our interest, stay away from this. Don't waste you money or time on this. I didn't believe the other negative viewer reviews. Believe them. Perhaps this film is best viewed for free while flying. Thanks J., keep up the good work. I may start reading the V.V. again.
Fred Cracklin 01/05/2010 2:29:00 AM

What do you mean "we can't all go home again, but eventually we have to"? That kind of nonsense sums up the mindset that enjoys this film.
Fred Cracklin 01/05/2010 2:26:00 AM

I'm not sure what this movie was trying to say, but boy was it sentimental. Can't we all just get along?
Jane 12/31/2009 9:02:00 AM

My husband left the movie. I only stayed because I hadn't left earlier and decided to wait the last 20 minutes. Ugh, I wish I had seen something else.
jlm 12/29/2009 10:30:00 PM

oh, i don't know if it's as airy as all that. the closing scene over the billowing clouds reminded me of the moment in Brazil when the character rises out of his painful torture and into his mental bliss...probably not unlike that shock-induced peace that i understand overtakes all senses when your head is being devoured by a lion. and the unemployed saying they have family to fall back on? sure, they all said what they said, but i didn't get the idea from the delivery that we were supposed to believe any of it and walk out of the theatre satisfied they would be okay. everything has a honeymoon period, including getting sacked. delusion was partnering with the invasiveness of electronics throughout that movie. even his home town LOOKED cozy, but he knew THERE IS NO POINT and there is NO WHERE TO HIDE. and what happens when our anti-hero actually falls for someone who is flesh and blood? he is a paranthesis - a texting icon - in a relationship that consisted of play-acting he chose not to acknowledge, text sex, phone bites of reality and disappointment with the real world. giving his sister free mileage was the most human moment in the film because it was the only real moment in the film. it was like, for a moment, his hand broke the surface of the bubble...and then disappeared back in.
Ben Franklin 12/26/2009 9:20:00 PM

'As articulated by the movie's several subplots and clinched with a concluding rainbow montage in which the unemployed extol the comfort of their loved ones, the cruelties of the free market can be ameliorated by a sentimental faith in Family Values. Up in the Air warns that you can't go home again�and then, full of false cheer and false consciousness, pretends you can.' I would say that what is good about the film is this antinomy between knowing that you can't go home again and knowing that you will or that you have to. Hoberman pretends that life isn't largely about false cheer and false consciousness, or at least that the director had considered this charge in advance and that any 'message' the film might have had was meant to be thought through this antinomy and not merely choosing one side or the other. There is that bit at the end where one of the women in the montage talks about being fired and how it's not just money, but what money can buy � gas for her heater, blankets, etc. � but that none of that warms her as much as being held by her husband. When you hear this yokel say something like that my first reaction was to laugh in her face, not recognize how beautiful family values are. By reading it so literally I feel like Hoberman is insulting the intelligence of the director, the audience and as a result completely impoverishing his own perspective.