
Unlike my blogging confrère, I somewhat ashamedly enjoyed Juno, but primarily for the comically pathetic character played by Jason Bateman. He's an artistic dreamer compromised by the bourgeois constraints of making an upper-middle class living. He's also the only basically decent adult male protagonist in director Jason Reitman's three-film oeuvre (perhaps due to being written by Diablo Cody, rather than the director). That is, Bateman's character still has some idea -- no matter how illusory -- of making music for something other than its exchange value. If his new film, Up in the Air, and first film, Thank You for Smoking, both of which he wrote, are any indication, Reitman's more interested in the bourgeois male who serves as the beguiling, devilish proponent of Capital. In the earlier film, Aaron Eckhart (who's always been the artier house parallel to George Clooney) plays the chief propagandist for Big Tobacco with absolute zeal, completely committed to the libertarian ideal of capitalism as being best when it's amoral -- let the consumer qua homo economicus make up his own mind. That such corporations pay big bucks to the rhetorical charms of such men puts the big lie to this idealization. Eckhart's character never goes beyond being a fascinating evil in the film, which keeps the audience at a distance from him, making it clear one should put identification on hold. It's for that reason that the attempted dramatic turns fall flat, even though the movie ain't half bad. This time around, Reitman places the capitalist devil in a romantic comedy, using the most seductive of contemporary stars, Clooney.

While Clooney gets compared to Cary Grant a lot (and for good reason), one thing he's never had is a role as good as the ones Hitchcock, Hawks and their writers used to supply -- at least, until now. Ryan Bingham is Clooney's Roger O. Thornhill, a complete narcissistic asshole with whom, nonetheless, you can't help but identify due to his charisma and tragic disposition. Whereas Hitchcock and writer Ernest Lehman provide some phony absolution for the adman Thornhill at the end of North by Northwest, Reitman and co-writer Sheldon Turner remain true to the letter(s) of their character (which might as well be 'R.O.T.,' with the 'O' standing "for nothing"). Ryan is a hatchetman for corporate downsizing, who uses his silver tongue to do what corporate bosses are too cowardly to do directly. In the manner exhaustively detailed in Barbara Ehrenreich's Bright-Sided, he uses the depraved double-speak of the positive thinking movement to make employees (supposedly) feel good about being canned -- as if it's a chance for a new beginning, rather than being cast off alone into the void. He's also a part-time self-help guru for management, who's devised a nihilist philosophy that justifies his own inability to connect with humanity except through a miserable way of making a living:
By justifying his life's work as that of the lonely Charon's, ferrying the formerly employed across the river to another plane of existence, Ryan provides succor to management types who might feel bad about firing so many during a recession. The comedy begins when he faces his own potential downsizing by a recently hired Ivy-League graduate, Natalie Keener (Anna Kendrick), who's developed a series of flowcharts, scripts and internet software which makes his job capable of being done more efficiently by remote (over a computer screen). Since Natalie's internet approach doesn't possess the simulated warmth of Ryan's person-to-person equivocal skills, the company pairs them out in the field to improve upon her algorithms. In a rare instance in a Hollywood film, a character-too-smart-for-his/her-own-good is actually smart. Natalie's means-end philosophy of life makes for the perfect counterpoint to Ryan's more jaded solipsism. Both have difficulty interacting with others as ends in themselves.
The romance is provided by Alex Goran (Vera Farmiga, who's like Cate Blanchett with the sex appeal of Veronica Lake). She's pretty much a female version of the Ryan character with some nondescript corporate job that keeps her in the air nearly as much his does him. Their layover-based affair begins through a comparison of frequent-flyer miles and prestigious credit cards. Instead of turning homicidal as it did in American Psycho, this one-upmanship is the "beginning of a beautiful relationship," where Ryan has finally found his mental and existential equal. It's also the first time Clooney has ever encountered an actress playing someone who isn't there for him to simply dominate with his charisma. (If this were the classic Studio-era in Hollywood, Farmiga and Clooney would go on to star together in another 5 or so films.) The problematic difference between the two characters is that she keeps her business and private life separate, whereas he isn't much more than than the protective mask he's created for his job. While the dialog is every bit as clever as that of the classic Depression-era romantic comedies, the film proves to be more modern in its approach to how easily one can cast off such masks.
A true classic of the Ought decade.
Relevant Tags
Barbara Ehrenreich (1), Jason Reitman (2), George Clooney (3), Cary Grant (2), Up In The Air (3), Romantic Comedy (3), Vera Farmiga (1), Cinema Criticism (32)Recent Posts From Charles Reece
Comments
oops, forgot to fill out the forms...
That makes sense. I'm not sure whether it's more gauche to be a Hollywood libertarian or leftist. Perhaps the former is more consistent, at least. Anyway, Reitman analyzes his ideology in much the way Peckinpah used STRAW DOGS to analyze his chauvinism.
Charles, did you read J.R. Jones's critique of the phenomenon of Up In The Air as a critical success (as opposed to his review of the film)? You should track it down.
You're talking about this? And then there's his capsule review where he wrote: "Reitman deserves credit for going through with a bitterly ironic ending, but the movie is marred by its warm condescension toward flyover country." Note the phrase "bitterly ironic ending," but in the same paragraph he dismisses the film as a "mildly challenging moral drama." I know that for myself, I have no sympathy for the assholes like Bingham in real life. What the film challenges isn't my (and probably Jones') own ideological view of capitalism, but it creates old-styled Hollywood identification (and old Hollywood is filled with assholes with whom you're supposed to identify) and rips it from you by the end, not letting you forget (temporarily suspend) the real world analog as you exit the theater. The challenge is trying to see humanity in someone like Bingham, which the movie does. The one really false note (cliche) in the film that I neglected to mention is the standing in front of a crowd and realizing that it's all just bullshit scene. However, given what follows, I see the film as critiquing such nonsense, not simply playing it narratively straight. And big city liberal critics like to continually go on about condescension towards flyover country without any justification for the remark and seemingly little knowledge about the people in such places. I went to a Midwest wedding a few years ago that looked a whole like the one in the film. That scene is beautifully accurate (minus Clooney and Varmiga, of course). Nonactors were used here, too, much like the presumedly noncondescending interview segments that Jones found emotionally resonant: "These are average middle-class people with families to support, people who've invested years of their lives in a job only to be tossed into the street with nothing but a severance package and Bingham's phony pep talk about starting a new chapter. They're hurt, angry, and frightened, peering into the abyss of unemployment and financial ruin. Even if you're not part of the 10 percent of America that makes up this group, you almost certainly know someone in it." Yet, if there's anything in the film that's a cheap bid for sentiment of a "mildly challenging moral drama," it's these sequences. Unlike the case with Bingham, we're not asked to think on the fact that these middle-class folk are working for the same rapacious corporate behemoth that produces people like Bingham, and that they did so for many years until it bit them on the ass. Instead, they're portrayed as victims, not willing agents. Is that condescension? Maybe after my Avatar blog, I'll return to this.
Aren't anti-capitalists meant to be concerned for the "average Jo" lower to middle class exploited worker, though? Surely a fair proportion of jobs in a given community are taken up by the big corporates, so some people will have no choice but to take the work on offer if they want an income - is that "willing"?




"I somewhat ashamedly enjoyed Juno" Hah, so you DID see it.
Anyway, looking forward to Up in the Air. According to a radio interview I heard, Jason Reitman is a libertarian, so he may be a little more favourably disposed towards the views of the likes of Eckhart's character in Thank You for Smoking.