The 2009 Academy Awards were handed out last week, with Kathryn Bigelow’s Iraq War film THE HURT LOCKER winning Best Picture and Director. Although it wasn’t my favorite American film of the year, it was a decent selection and the Oscars have certainly done worse (FORREST GUMP or CRASH, anyone?). However, the two screenplay awards (original and adapted), which are usually when the Academy honors the deserving films of that year that get overlooked for Best Feature, were unusually weak: THE HURT LOCKER (winner for original screenplay) was mostly a triumph of direction, while PRECIOUS (winner for adapted) was mostly compelling for its performances. The writing honors should have gone to Quentin Tarantino for  INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (original) and Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner for UP IN THE AIR (adapted). While INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS had a fine theatrical run both in North America and here in Korea in the fall, UP IN THE AIR was less successful, and has only opened here in Korea last Thursday. I have now seen the film three times, and think it may be the best American film this year, particularly in terms of degree of difficulty.  (SPOILERS AHEAD)

The difficulty in successfully making this story can be partly explained by the difficulty of effectively summing up what it is about. On one level, it is a character study of Ryan Bingham (played by George Clooney), an aging bachelor who gives lectures on his lifestyle of non-commitment. He uses the metaphor of the backpack, arguing that a person’s possessions and especially their relationships weigh them down and that “living is moving”. But the film is equally about Ryan’s job as a “transition specialist”, an euphemistic description of someone whose job is to fire other people. While a few of the people we see fired are professionals (such as well-known characters actors Zach Galifianakis and J.K. Simmons), Reitman cast many amateurs who had recently been fired themselves. Thus the scenes of them talking to Bingham/ the camera have a documentary feel, not unlike Warren Beatty’s use of “witnesses” in his historical drama REDS (1981).

Thus, the film is trying to do at least two things at once: (1) give us a smart comedy about Ryan’s relationships, most of which are with women: his casual romantic partner Alex (Vera Farmiga), his younger business partner Natalie (Anna Kendrick), and his two sisters, one of whom is getting married; and (2) provide a commentary on the devastation caused by the recent economic collapse. Given the primacy of the personal over the political in almost all Hollywood films, it is not surprising that the first goal is accomplished much more thoroughly than the second. But, to its credit, there is a despair and potency to many of the images: both the faces of those fired and the spaces they used to inhabit.

And it is a further credit to the story that, while it contains many archetypes of American storytelling, it never works towards easily resolving the contradictions it raises (quite unlike Reitman’s previous film JUNO). Ryan is a very familiar character type, played by an actor with a similar off-screen persona. He is the adventurous male, avoiding the confines of civilization. But because this is a romantic comedy, a genre that  depends on integration, we assume he will reform, especially since his notion of freedom is so radical. And in a sense, he does go through this process. He goes home for his sister’s wedding, and when her fiance has cold feet, Ryan saves the day by convincing him of the value of relationships. Thus, he has been reformed from his former ideological position. But, he cannot now enter this society. His relationship with Alex ends when he discovers she is already married and has a family. He thus ends the film like a western hero, with no home, forever wandering the modern wilderness of airport lounges.

What is both affecting and disturbing about this ending is not just the loneliness of this character (which is familiar), but the grimness of the world he has to inhabit. Moreover, the audience is not sure if he will continue his “job termination” work, which, however humanely he may perform it, is still on the side of destruction. Unlike most Hollywood films, which clearly mark which type of story they are telling (action such as INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS and THE HURT LOCKER, integration such as PRECIOUS), UP IN THE AIR remains true to its title. This is why I admire it so much, as this type of approach is like a tightrope act in which it is easy to fall. And many may feel it does fail, that its treatment of the economic sub-plot is trite and shallow and does not work with the main narrative line. But I think Reitman finds the exact tone he needs, and Clooney, who is certainly limited as an actor, provides his best performance in a role only he could play as effectively. Even things that bothered me on initial viewings, such as the two musical montage sequences, stopped being distracting on subsequent screenings and actually compare favourably with some of Wes Anderson’s better scenes. I’m not yet convinced Reitman is a great director and it is very likely that this is his peak, but everything comes together in this one.

As for other 2009 Oscar winners, CRAZY HEART, featuring Best Actor Jeff Bridges, is currently playing here and is well worth seeing. And it is possible that THE HURT LOCKER may finally get a release in Korea after its big night. You can check my review of that film here.

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.