(Editor’s Note: This post is littered with spoilers. We give fair warning right before the tidbits are revealed. Just skip one sentence, unless otherwise noted. Enjoy)
You know when people say, and mind you these are snobby annoying people like me, that the book is much better than the movie. They drone on and on about how some writer or director misplaced some author’s amazing vision. If you hear anyone doing that about UP IN THE AIR, call them an idiot. Heck, call their bluff, because I don’t think they really read the book, since it stinks.
Ok, it doesn’t actually stink. Walter Kirn’s book of the same name as the movie begins as a fascinating read about the travels of a frequent flyer. Although by Kirn’s description, the label of a frequent flyer falls short of appropriately defining Ryan Bingham’s travels. Bingham immerses himself in his travels, because it is his life. He’s not on a trip, he’s living his life. When he’s “home” is when he’s a stranger in a strange land, partially because he doesn’t have a standard home.
Kirn’s novel begins as the documentation of a corporate assassin who travels around the country with the purpose of amassing one million frequent flyer miles before he leaves his job. In the movie he is going for 10 million miles, but it’s not a big deal.
Unfortunately, while Bingham is detailed, precise and remains on task and schedule, Kirn’s writing doesn’t reflect those same tendencies. The story begins to meander and get discombobulated, as we lose track of the events in the book. (Spoiler alert) Maybe that makes sense, because Ryan is experiencing seizures, but I’m inclined to believe that my frustrations with the story were not the result of a twist and were more likely the product of an ill-conceived delivery.
Honestly, when I think back about the book I don’t know what happened from page 100 to 280. Essentially I got so jet lagged by the story that I forgot where I had been, where I was and where I was going.
It’s all quite sad for a book that does such a beautiful job describing “air world,” it can’t put any coherent thoughts or descriptions together. The action seems unrealistic and scripted in some strange time. The characters all seem phony.
It all comes back to these mysterious seizures, which may explain why I couldn’t understand what was going on, since the narrator didn’t have a handle on his own existence. If that was the case, if all the misdirection was on purpose, then boo this book. Why ruin a fun travel book by making it feel like English class??? Ugh. Then again, all of this rests on the idea that the writer intended to make no sense, which I still don’t buy.
Luckily, (spoiler alert) none of this crap is in the movie!
Basically the movie only shares a couple characters’ names, some direct lines and title. That’s it! The only downside of this is that we still don’t get the fun travel movie, as the movie took on added layers and changed direction in light of the economic climate that forced it to alter its route (that’s a plane analogy).
What you end up with in the movie is a story that explores Ryan’s perceptions about life and the fulfillment of life. This aspect is extremely depressing in the film, since it represents a fact about life that people don’t want to deal with.
Specifically, what is it that gives our lives meaning? Is it the stereotypical stuff, like a spouse, house and perfect black blouse? Or should we only strive for meaningful moments along life? These are the questions addressed in this movie, and while they’re aren’t definitely answered, it seems like director/writer Jason Reitman is trying to say that there’s nothing wrong with opting for the traditional existence.
Reitman doesn’t merely lend credence to this belief, though, and does acknowledge that life requires a break from itself. (Spoiler alert) This idea is embodied by the double life of Alex (Vera Farmiga), who has her jollies on the road, yet ultimately comes home to her “real” life. (THis is supposed to be a twist, but everyone I was with saw it coming) Alex seems to have her life together, which is why I think Reitman is endorsing her lifestyle. She is able to balance her life in such a way that she maximizes her existence. She’s not trapped in a life that was scripted for her.
The opposite could be said about Ryan (George Clooney), who seems trapped in a struggle against the traditional existence. As portrayed by Clooney, Ryan is a man that denigrates common beliefs about love and family, simply because he’s having too much fun to be tied down by those shackles. (spoiler alert) Except in the end, the idea of those shackles is comforting to Ryan, since he goes after Alex in an attempt to settle down.
As written by Reitman the script is extremely tight, realistic and poignant. This is not Diablo Cody’s wandering way of speaking with the employment of constant catch phrases that characterized Retiman’s last film, Juno.
A large dose of the realism of the script stems from the use of real people, who were for the most part reenacting the conditions they were fired under. This was a late addition to the film, which was the product of Reitman deeming it necessary to increase the role of the tough economy in the movie.
That’s enough deep contemplative thinking until the end, when I deal with the end of the movie. For now, let me just reminisce about the twinkle in Clooney’s eyes, the naked backside of Farmiga, the delight of young actress Anna Kendrick, and tip my hat to the cast of characters that owned their roles.
Clooney can never escape the fact that he is Clooney. He’s not like Matt Damon, who can disappear into a role. He plays a version of George Clooney in every movie, and it’s no different here. It’s nice, though, to see him work with a script that plays to his strengths, specifically his rapid delivery style, a strong female counterbalance and an air of mischievous.
I honestly can’t imagine anyone else playing this role, except for maybe Matt Damon in ten years, since Damon could probably become Clooney. For now, though Clooney is Ryan Bingham. As Bingham, Clooney sells the evolution of the character who sees his world view tested.
Almost outshining Clooney are the female leads, Kendrick and Farmiga, each offering different worldviews. Kendrick plays the young up and comer (absent basically from the book), who has the cookie cutter view of life. We can fire people via satellite, we can mold our perfect man and settling is just a way to make failure acceptable. Kendrick kills as this naïve girl, who actually isn’t that naïve, just young.
On the other hand you have Farmiga, who plays the more grizzled Alex (so different from the one in the book), who seems to have figured out everything with time. She is completely self-aware and its amazing to watch. Farmiga kills in this role, which could have completely fallen apart in the hands of a weaker actress. In Farmiga’s capable hands, the role of Alex comes alive and becomes even more than the words Reitman wrote.
Really can’t say enough about all the actors in this movie, who through Reitman’s directions gave great performances. I would be shocked if Clooney wasn’t nominated for Best Actor comes Oscar season. I do think that Farmiga and Kendrick will end up knocking each other out of contention, but they did each get recognized at the Globes.
Oh yeah, and Danny McBride is good in the movie as Ryan’s future brother-in-law. It was a huge surprise, but he kills it as your average joe, who for a second envisions himself embracing Ryan’s philosophy of life until Ryan talks him out of it. It’s quite funny in a sad and depressing way. Actually a lot of the movie is sad and depressing, yet you’re laughing and find yourself embarrassed about it. I think that’s good, since awkwardness and tension usually generates uncomfortable laughter.
As for the ending (yeah, stop reading now if you haven’t seen the movie. It’s been nice and I’ll talk to you later), I wasn’t that happy. Ryan gets rejected by Alex, since she has a family, and basically is doomed to live alone in “air world,” no matter how much he argues that he’s really not alone. This argument is believe when he posits it earlier in the movie, as he’s got Alex by his side and the world by the stones, but it doesn’t make sense that he would accept this after he’s had his world view altered. I thought he should have killed himself.
Although, maybe his world view wasn’t altered, and the incident with Alex reaffirmed his beliefs. It must have, if he was willing to go back to a life he seemed poised to abandon.
