Belated-Review: Up in the Air
Film: Up in the Air
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, and Jason Bateman.
Director: Jason Reitman
Screenwriter: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
An Oscar nominated film sparks so many thoughts in my mind, including the key one: "Well, it must be good!"
Was it?
I'm not sure. When first asked what I thought about the film, I said tentatively that I liked it. The theme had taken me by surprise a bit, and I wasn't sure what kind of message it was sending. But after I thought about it for a few hours I came to realize that while the film was entertaining, the contradictions within it were too perplexing for me to give it a whole-hearted positive response.
Let's take Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young woman, fresh out of Harvard, who creates a computer program that promises to save her company money by delivering bad news via the internet rather than in person. You see, Natalie works for a firm that's hired by corporations that don't have the backbone to face their employees and fire them in person. So this firm is hired, and people are flown all over the United States to do the unenviable job.
But Natalie wants to go one step further, and have the firm itself use a less interactive method of doing the job by telling them via computer screen.
You've been fired. Have a nice day!
The irony in all this is Natalie herself. She too seems distant and emotionless, seeing life as a collection of organized, planned events rather than anything emotional. So far she fits the profile of someone who would come up with this electronic firing device. However, when she is "fired" from her relationship by her suddenly ex-boyfriend via text, she's stunned. How could he be so cold? I don't know, Natalie. Why don't you ask your computer?
Suddenly, Natalie starts to dissect her colleague, Ryan Bingham's (George Clooney) life. Ryan is someone who loves jetting around the country, racking up frequent flyer miles in order to hit the platinum status. He doesn't mind meeting people face to face and telling them the bad news, mainly because he always has a way of dealing with it: He has no attachments to anything. He barely stays in one place and does not have a real home to go to. However, Natalie intervenes, not only by changing his job role, but also questioning his motivations and aspirations.
Normally I wouldn't have a problem with someone questioning another's life, but in this instance I really didn't think Natalie had the authority, nor the emotional experience to criticize as she did. She's the one who provided an insensitive means of breaking bad news to people, and has a very unrealistic way of living life. And yet she's questioning his?
Could it be that she had an epiphany when her boyfriend broke up with her? If so, I didn't see it.
One could argue that Natalie is an emotional being, given the fact that she gave up her job aspirations to follow her fiance to wherever his career took him. But we soon learn that she did it because it was what was planned in her life. It was the thing to do. At least that's how she matter-of-factly put it in her almost monotone, robotic voice.
I can understand the way this film is presented, showing us Ryan's lifestyle and how he interacts with people, especially in regards to the questions that are raised to him and how he evaluates them and his own life, but I cannot accept Natalie. Why does he listen to her at all? What wisdom does she provide?
The rest of the cast were much better and fit the theme of the film quite nicely. I always enjoy Vera Farmiga's films, and she does a great job here as Alex. Some people had a problem with Alex, but I didn't. She wanted the life Ryan had.
I also liked Jason Bateman as Craig Gregory, Ryan's boss. I almost didn't recognize him. I had no problem with this character whatsoever.
Then there's Ryan's family, who seem to be falling apart at the seams, despite the fact that his sister is getting married. I liked them, although - again - Ryan finds his life being questioned, this time by the eldest of his two sisters. She asks him why he isn't married or settled down, while she's recently separated and living in a hotel.
They do seem happy, however, especially because they believe in the family unit and that families should stick together while things seem to be falling apart around them. But are they truly, deeply happy? No. No one is happy when their marriage is crumbling. Is she finding reassurance in her sister's upcoming nuptials? Perhaps. Either that, or she's hopeful for her sister to have a better life and is using the wedding as an excuse to get her mind off her own problems.
So what are we learning from this film? What I can tell is that this film is not about the usual belief that one needs a home or a family to make them happy. This time around it's more about the definition of happiness and the ideal vs the reality. The sad part is that Ryan's version of happiness, while in doubt, is so radically different than the definition, and it paints the rest of the world as miserably unhappy. And while I agree that we should do what makes us happy and not be influenced by others' definitions of happiness, I did find this film a bit depressing in the end.
One thought this film raised with me was the saying, "Consider the source." So many times we encounter unsolicited advice or criticism from people. Sometimes we take it to heart, especially if we hear it so many times from different sources. Sometimes the advice is worthwhile an meaningful. Other times it's perplexing that people feel they must question something that makes you happy. And when you look at those people posing the question and see their lives as somewhat unfulfilled, you have to ask yourself if you should really ponder their criticisms and possibly change your life to meet the ideal? Or do you take into account that despite their questions, they aren't as happy as you and you should rejoice in your unique choice of what makes you happy?
Obviously it's the latter, but we don't always respond like that right away, at least not all of us. And I think that's what this film is showing us. It's showing us what happens when enough people question your motivation. Should you change it? Ryan ponders this question.
So consider the source... good advice, especially in this film.
Starring: George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, Anna Kendrick, and Jason Bateman.
Director: Jason Reitman
Screenwriter: Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
An Oscar nominated film sparks so many thoughts in my mind, including the key one: "Well, it must be good!"
Was it?
I'm not sure. When first asked what I thought about the film, I said tentatively that I liked it. The theme had taken me by surprise a bit, and I wasn't sure what kind of message it was sending. But after I thought about it for a few hours I came to realize that while the film was entertaining, the contradictions within it were too perplexing for me to give it a whole-hearted positive response.
Let's take Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), a young woman, fresh out of Harvard, who creates a computer program that promises to save her company money by delivering bad news via the internet rather than in person. You see, Natalie works for a firm that's hired by corporations that don't have the backbone to face their employees and fire them in person. So this firm is hired, and people are flown all over the United States to do the unenviable job.
But Natalie wants to go one step further, and have the firm itself use a less interactive method of doing the job by telling them via computer screen.
You've been fired. Have a nice day!
The irony in all this is Natalie herself. She too seems distant and emotionless, seeing life as a collection of organized, planned events rather than anything emotional. So far she fits the profile of someone who would come up with this electronic firing device. However, when she is "fired" from her relationship by her suddenly ex-boyfriend via text, she's stunned. How could he be so cold? I don't know, Natalie. Why don't you ask your computer?
Suddenly, Natalie starts to dissect her colleague, Ryan Bingham's (George Clooney) life. Ryan is someone who loves jetting around the country, racking up frequent flyer miles in order to hit the platinum status. He doesn't mind meeting people face to face and telling them the bad news, mainly because he always has a way of dealing with it: He has no attachments to anything. He barely stays in one place and does not have a real home to go to. However, Natalie intervenes, not only by changing his job role, but also questioning his motivations and aspirations.
Normally I wouldn't have a problem with someone questioning another's life, but in this instance I really didn't think Natalie had the authority, nor the emotional experience to criticize as she did. She's the one who provided an insensitive means of breaking bad news to people, and has a very unrealistic way of living life. And yet she's questioning his?
Could it be that she had an epiphany when her boyfriend broke up with her? If so, I didn't see it.
One could argue that Natalie is an emotional being, given the fact that she gave up her job aspirations to follow her fiance to wherever his career took him. But we soon learn that she did it because it was what was planned in her life. It was the thing to do. At least that's how she matter-of-factly put it in her almost monotone, robotic voice.
I can understand the way this film is presented, showing us Ryan's lifestyle and how he interacts with people, especially in regards to the questions that are raised to him and how he evaluates them and his own life, but I cannot accept Natalie. Why does he listen to her at all? What wisdom does she provide?
The rest of the cast were much better and fit the theme of the film quite nicely. I always enjoy Vera Farmiga's films, and she does a great job here as Alex. Some people had a problem with Alex, but I didn't. She wanted the life Ryan had.
I also liked Jason Bateman as Craig Gregory, Ryan's boss. I almost didn't recognize him. I had no problem with this character whatsoever.
Then there's Ryan's family, who seem to be falling apart at the seams, despite the fact that his sister is getting married. I liked them, although - again - Ryan finds his life being questioned, this time by the eldest of his two sisters. She asks him why he isn't married or settled down, while she's recently separated and living in a hotel.
They do seem happy, however, especially because they believe in the family unit and that families should stick together while things seem to be falling apart around them. But are they truly, deeply happy? No. No one is happy when their marriage is crumbling. Is she finding reassurance in her sister's upcoming nuptials? Perhaps. Either that, or she's hopeful for her sister to have a better life and is using the wedding as an excuse to get her mind off her own problems.
So what are we learning from this film? What I can tell is that this film is not about the usual belief that one needs a home or a family to make them happy. This time around it's more about the definition of happiness and the ideal vs the reality. The sad part is that Ryan's version of happiness, while in doubt, is so radically different than the definition, and it paints the rest of the world as miserably unhappy. And while I agree that we should do what makes us happy and not be influenced by others' definitions of happiness, I did find this film a bit depressing in the end.
One thought this film raised with me was the saying, "Consider the source." So many times we encounter unsolicited advice or criticism from people. Sometimes we take it to heart, especially if we hear it so many times from different sources. Sometimes the advice is worthwhile an meaningful. Other times it's perplexing that people feel they must question something that makes you happy. And when you look at those people posing the question and see their lives as somewhat unfulfilled, you have to ask yourself if you should really ponder their criticisms and possibly change your life to meet the ideal? Or do you take into account that despite their questions, they aren't as happy as you and you should rejoice in your unique choice of what makes you happy?
Obviously it's the latter, but we don't always respond like that right away, at least not all of us. And I think that's what this film is showing us. It's showing us what happens when enough people question your motivation. Should you change it? Ryan ponders this question.
So consider the source... good advice, especially in this film.
Comments
Post a Comment