In the Air

This film is about a man who fires people for a living. His world becomes upside down when his job is radically changed by a newly recruited young fresh graduate.

"Up in the Air" is a well made film. The plot focuses on character development and emotional changes of the characters. It is not easy to make characters interesting and memorable, but "Up in the Air" does just that. Both the characters of George Clooney and Anna Kendrick have strongly divergent attitudes and personalities, but they have great chemistry and change each other slowly but surely. How they radically shake each others core belief is engagingly told. I enjoyed watching "Up in the Air" a lot, as it tells an engaging story of self discovery.

Up in the Air has great performances from George Clooney, Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick with a great supporting cast. It also has a good combination of emotion, comedy and drama which helps overcome the predictable elements in the third act.

Halfway through this movie I considered it an 8 out of 10 and decently spent money. The second half came as a big surprise. George Clooney let go of all his suave and let his eyes show fear and isolation that real people feel.

There were two things going on in this movie. On one end, we were looking at the people getting fired. On the other end, we were seeing the problems with Ryan's way of life. The interviews at the end with the people who lost their jobs explaining that it was family and support that brought them through bad times hit a perfect note for bringing both parts of the story together.

The title of this film literally explains what it is like to not know what aspects of your life are solid, such as a home or a significant other. Everything going on is simply up in the air. One day, what you thought was one way will turn out to be something else entirely.

Best of Reitman's three. Very much recommend it.

I really liked the movie, it kind of invites you to bring your own wine. There's a lot of probing into modern life and relationships, and it's up to you what you take from the film and what you feel for each of the characters. I was quite grateful for having seen Reitman's Thank You For Smoking (2005) previously, because both movies are really arch in the way they set up people in thoroughly pariah job roles and then get you to warm to them. So it didn't really come as a shock to see Clooney as an HR consultant (Ryan Bingham) whose job is to fire people in redundancy exercises where the management are too yeller, instead it rated an amused and knowing eyebrow raise.

Although a lot of the movie concerns the workplace, the disconnect between the interests of corporates and the interests of society (a link that was present historically in America, but which has been irrevocably decoupled), and how to work in that environment, the interest for me was more to do with relationships. From my male perspective there are some fairly poisonous insights into the female mind (though it may be unfair to generalise), the young Cornell grad Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick) talks about her preconceptions of the man she will meet, the kind of name he will have, apparently the only thing he will love more than her is their "golden lab". The slightly older perspective from Alex Goran (played by Vera Farmiga) is that the man should be taller, should earn more, and come from a good family. To go with the aeronautical theme of the movie, the theatre should have provided some sick bags.

The main theme is, for me, pure Frank Borzage, it's about earning the right to love and be loved. In common with 80 years ago when those movies were being made, it's an onus that only weighs upon the male of the species, which makes the film a little hackneyed.

My favourite ambiguity of the film would have to be the backpack lectures that Bingham (Clooney) gives. He has a whole metaphor about everything in your life, the people, the trinkets, all the stuff you can collect, being in a backpack and weighing you down. He says that people aren't swans, they're not meant to be together forever, that they're actually sharks, who have to keep swimming continually, weighed down by nothing. I think there's an element of truth to both poles, I can see both arguments. I just love going to a Hollywood movie and not having an opinion shoved down my throat.

I had a slight problem regarding the level of realism in the film, I felt that the air-commuter lifestyle that was being shown was over-slicked, like I was watching something of a feather with The Consequences Of Love (or Giulia Doesn't Sleep At Night, two of the great modern hyper-stylised films from Italy). Nothing wrong with stylisation, except that I think Jason was trying to go for a film that had a lot of resonance with Recession America. I felt it was awkward to introduce real-life folks at the end, and also realistic looking termination assessments (or whatever they're called when you can someone), when the actors such as Clooney and Vera Farmiga were just so damned suave, as if from a different universe.

And this is to Claire.

We are drawn in by interesting, unique storyline and smart satirizations. About a man whose unique job is to fly around the country to inform people that they are fired. He meets a young ambitious woman that joins his company and who wants to change the system. Her ideas clash with his personal lifestyle choices.

What the movie really is about is lifestyle choices, and relationship choices, choosing independence and freedom versus commitment and well established interpersonal relationships. By taking a definitive stance the movie provides interesting commentary on those that for whatever reason (not necessarily for work) don't stay put.

A Monotone mood is established, that gave a bland aspect as though nothing substantial was happening. Part of the story took a dull meandering at times, however there were unconventional plot twists that made something that was seemingly Hollywood predictable not that way at all. And it was still interesting and entertaining to watch the contemporary witticisms.

The two main characters, although not the most true to life characters ever created, were brilliant satires of people we all know. We are all too familiar with the fiercely independent, non-committal, cockily at ease bachelor and we have also come across the, sharp, type A, ivy league know it all yet with an obvious naivety especially shown with her declaration of the specific laundry list of traits that her partner must have.

There were also some smart satirical illustrations of contemporary times in business, relationships, how people interact and the recession. For example the use of the smart phones in the new techno/relationship world is not simply put in as a momentum mechanism but is used as a symbol to satirize contemporary society.

It is not so much Clooney's acting that is a marvel as the casting, which was perfect. By being so spot on by choosing someone on the cusp of getting a little older yet with plenty of playful, youthful vigor we sense the conflict and the melancholy.