It occurred to me that it’s been a while since I have seen a movie in theaters. I check the listings of my favorite theater – The Landmark on Westwood and Pico and realized that I wanted to see every film they’re showing…except for maybe Precious thanks to my coworker Brad’s candid thoughts.

So let’s get into it. Jason Reitman’s third film has been getting some award season buzz for his latest, Up in the Air. (imdb synopsis)

I WILL be talking about the ending of the film you might want to skip this entry and come back once you’ve seen it.

[ SPOILER ALERT ]

SCRIPT/STRUCTURE
This will win over critics and audiences alike because it’s one of those movies that ties everything up into a nice little package. Or if you wanna be a jerk about it – predictable. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The setups had satisfying payoffs, even though at times you knew that something was coming. The film is paced nicely and with the exception of one small section during the denoument resolution portion of the story, every scene did what it was supposed to. It was efficient in that none of the scenes lagged.

The married couple cutout photos from all over the country was an especially great device. It was introduced as a quirky and harmless wedding gag, but paid off both physically and emotionally. When Ryan sees the map of the United States filled with pictures of his sister (whose character name I forgot) and Jim, he probably realizes he’s been everywhere, but never really with anyone. Ryan also decides to use his miles to buy them tickets to travel around the world.

CHARACTER
Predictable is fine so long as you care about the characters. There were good ones here. The whole veteran-paired-with-a-rookie dynamic isn’t anything new, but works well to inform who these characters are. The teacher teaches the job, the student learns the job. Throughout the journey, the teacher also learns something from the student. Ryan Bingham and Natalie Kendrick are clearly on opposites poles, but the evolution of their relationship progressed logically and realistically.

A good character always has good supporting characters to help/hamper him from achieving his physical and emotional goals. They also inform some of the contrasting, yet equally valid lifestyle choices that Ryan could have. Ryan’s love interest, Alex, his mentee, Natalie, sisters and brother-in-law all lent a hand in helping Ryan make choices throughout the film.

I have a hard time imagining another actor play Ryan Bingham. There’s a sincerity and charm in George Clooney’s performance that really gets the audience to latch on and go for the 2 hour ride. Believe it or not, Ryan does have an external goal in this movie – to achieve 10 million frequent flyer miles. But I forgot about that goal because I started to care about whether or not Ryan would change his mind about his lifestyle. And by the time he achieves his external goal, you really don’t care. And guess what, neither does Ryan. Credit Jason Reitman for recognizing the importance of character growth.

DIRECTION
Jason Reitman, like Sofia Coppola, comes from film royalty so perhaps I hold high expectations. I’ve enjoyed his first two offerings (Thank You for Smoking and Juno) and there’s a part of me that kind of wants him to fail. The film walks a fine line between heartfelt and cheesy. I think Reitman knows how to walk that fine line. I’m convinced that with a lesser director (or lesser actors) the film could’ve gone into uber-cheesy. The ending isn’t a typical Hollywood ending – where the protagonist gets what the audience thinks he wants – but it’s also satisfying because the character has changed.

I’ve sprinkled some other thoughts about his direction in some of the categories below.

STYLE
The movie was classically shot (tripod and dolly shots) with the exception of one or two Aronofsky/Ritchie-type montages sprinkled in. The one that comes to mind was when they showed Ryan Bingham’s routine – airport check-in, security check-point, renting the rental car, and hotel check-in – which was a great technique to quickly get the point across.

There was a sequence later in the film that looked different from the rest. As I watched the scene, I remember being offput a bit – like it stuck out. After marinating for a while, I can now appreciate the creative choice. When Jim Miller (Danny McBride) warms up his cold feet and follows through with the marriage to Ryan’s sister, the cinematography changed. The movie up to that point was was mostly static and slow dolly shots, but converted to a more verite, no…documentary…no, camcorder style of shooting for the wedding sequence. The goal was to create the feeling that you were watching home video footage of an important moment in your life – one you would share with family, which contrasts Ryan’s entire worldview.

It works from a thematic standpoint and give Jason Reitman credit for making a cinematic choice like this. This is what directing is.

THOUGHTS/GRIPES
I enjoyed the film and think it’s rated just about right. Ever since Lost in Translation, I’ve always been weary about films being overhyped and eventually underwhelming when I finally watch it. Would I think it would be as good if I watch this AFTER it wins a Golden Globe? Who knows.

I did think one sequence was a bit heavy-handed. It incorporated the use of interview-like footage of employees who have been terminated. These interviews were intercut with either Ryan or Natalie laying people off. Towards the end of the film, Reitman intercut some footage in which the subjects express how grateful they were to have a husband/wife/family to help them cope with the pain and  uncertainty of unemployment. By this time in the film, the narrative already gets its point across. I didn’t need them to shove it down my throat. Heartfelt and cheesy = po-TAY-to and po-TAH-to. I could probably go either way depending on how cynical I’m feeling at that moment.

Anyhow, great film to start awards season. Next up: Avatar in IMAX 3D! (although it’s unclear if it will get any awards buzz outside of Outstanding Visual Effects)

Tags: movies, reviews

RSS 2.0 | comment | trackback