Day 2 at TIFF 2009 brought on the two films at this festival that could be thought of as Juno followups: the Jason Reitman-directed Up in the Air, starring George Clooney as a traveling merchant of vocational death and Vera Farmiga as the woman who induces his midlife attack of consciousness; and Jennifer’s Body, starring Megan Fox as high school evil incarnate, directed by Karyn Kusama from a script by Diablo Cody. The former has emerged as near-unanimous favorite both here and at Telluride; the later has been largely derided as a disappointment. Whatever Juno seemed to be at the time of its release, two years later I imagine it would be hard for either its biggest fans to get it up enough to defend its Oscar-worthiness, or for its hardest haters to declaim it as a travesty. If anything, Up in the Air and Jennifer’s Body reveal the extent to which Juno could have only worked as a cultural phenomenon by committee: Cody’s instinct as an auteur is to drop a breadcrumb trail of code, while Reitman’s obsessive yen for polished explication is Academy all the way. Each needs their talent balanced by the opposite.
In Up in the Air, Clooney’s Ryan Bingham is a proud bachelor who gleefully crisscrosses the continent 300 days a year, leaving a trail of unemployment in his wake. Ryan works for an Omaha-based company to which other companies outsource the task of downsizing to minimize their own personal and legal risk. “Christmas has come early this year,” quips Ryan’s boss (Jason Bateman), and Ryan is no more sensitive to the increasingly dire economic realities that keep him in business traveler’s nirvana. Passing out pink slips is what Ryan does, but the dance between airports, airplanes, hotel bars and complementary terry cloth robes is who he is. “To know me is to fly with me,” he chirps via voiceover — mostly because if there’s any directorial flourish Jason Reitman gets off on more than narrative montages set to jangly guitar ballads, it’s pointedly glib voiceover. Ryan’s worked hard to ennoble the business that subsidizes his lifestyle. “We are here to make limbo tolerable,” he tells a co-worker. Of course, it’s not until two very special ladies fly into his life that Ryan realizes that he is –– wait for it — in something of an intolerable limbo himself.
With increasingly tough times calling for desperate measures to streamline the employee elimination industry, Ryan is given a traveling companion/reality check/surrogate daughter in the form of Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a perfectionist Ivy Leaguer who has developed a videoconference system for issuing redundancies. Around the same time, on a typical night in a typically nondescript hotel bar, Ryan picks up Alex (Vera Farmiga), who seems to be his female counterpart: they both have a passion for business travel as sport, and both have conspicuously little to say about their respective lives off-road. Alex is an elusive presence (this is a role engineered to the second for a Best Supporting Actress nomination), and after years of flying solo (like virtually everything else in this film, literally), Ryan soon finds himself longing––apparently for the first time EVAR––for a more substantial relationship. Jumping straight to the Clooney + drunken flirting = Total Audience Wish Fulfillment equation in the first act is a risky move, but the chemistry between he and Farmiga is such a knockout that it works. For her part, the actress turns an intentionally two-dimensional character into an enigmatic marvel, even as Reitman has her blatantly telegraph her character’s Big Secret an hour before Ryan (literally!) flies into it.
Whether you think Jason Retiman is the new Billy Wilder or the hackiest hack in Hacksville, it’s inarguable that he is an extraordinarily transparent filmmaker. Up in the Air, which he directed and scripted (from a novel by Walter Kirn), has no double or hidden meanings, and precious little is left unsaid through dialog or via voiceover. Like Juno and Thank You For Smoking, it doesn’t require the viewer to do work or ask questions, and barring a single scene in which Alex and Natalie have a loaded conversation about romantic ideals as Ryan silently listens on, nothing is left open for interpretation –– what you see is what you get. In other words, Jason Reitman does what Hollywood filmmakers are supposed to do. They are supposed to tell stories in the most straightforward manner possible; they are supposed to make their choices seem invisible to the casual viewer so that the stars pop and the Big Emotional Moments sing. That Reitman is perceived after this trifecta as being anything like an auteur in the contemporary sense of the word is remarkable.
Spotted with snippets of mock exit interviews with real recently laid-off Americans, Up in the Air tries hard to embody this moment of national melancholy, but Reitman reveals his hand by setting the opening credits to a light blues cover of “This Land is Your Land.” The song, and the film, are pure American schmaltz jazzed up, its inherent brightness tinted blue but never significantly darkened. Up in the Air is the kind of feel-good film about bad news that has been winning Oscars for decades. Like its opening song, we’ve heard Up in the Air’s tune so many times that it no longer means anything.
Reitman and Cody seem to have a common interest in tweaking genre conventions just enough to get critics excited that they went there, but both refuse to subvert audience expectations to the point of inviting frustration. That Jennifer’s Body has been widely described as not meeting expectations is odd, because what exactly was expected from a teen horror sex comedy starring Megan Fox and scripted by Diablo Cody? Self-aware, sexually voracious teenage girls? Check. Narration in blog voice and illogical internet jokes? Check. A subplot involving an indie band desperate for the kind of wealth and fame that comes from getting a song on a cool soundtrack — thus pointing back to Juno and reifying the Diabloverse? Check! All this and a prolonged girl-on-girl make out session? What’s not to like?
A lot. Dramatically inert and neither funny for scary nor sexy, Jennifer’s Body is the kind of failed film that can only come from deep, collaborative miscalculation. The shock of the script is not the badness of the ironic, momentum-tripping throwaway gags (such as when someone who can’t forget something horrible is told to “Move on, dot org”), but the flatness of everything in between. Cody’s deconstruction of key 80s teen genres (slasher horror, John Hughes, Heathers) starts with aping their earnest pretension. Needy (Amanda Seyfried) narrates; she’s the nerdy enabler of Jennifer (Fox), the hottie in heat who goes homocidal after an unfortunate post-traumatic run-in with a suspicious pub band. Cody’s twist on the Final Girl mythology wouldn’t have a chance of succeeding if embodied by a character as reflexively snarky as her last film’s namesake, but too much of Jennifer’s expository language goes too far in the other direction, such as when Needy explains that she and Jennifer “were our yearbook pictures—nothing more, nothing less.” How one could hypothetically achieve a state of being that’s “less than” a yearbook photo, and what that would actually entail, is anyone’s guess.
The total lack of chemistry between actors is probably partially their own fault, but it’s important to note that Karyn Kusama, best known for directing the Sundance hit Girlfight and most recently known for her disastrous Aeon Flux adaption, has zero sense of timing. Her horror setpieces are suspense free (a far cry from the Italian gore that’s said to have been a Cody inspiration), and the ostensibly comic dialog is done no favors by the director’s haphazard cutting. Filling screen time and space with innumerable shots of Megan Fox walking, running, swimming towards the camera to an Evanescent-esque hard guitar score (the titular Hole song is never heard in the film, though a different one plays over the closing credits), Kusama’s visual signature seems to extend no further than deciding which of these shots to run in slow motion.
Critics seem to be shocked that Jennifer’s Body isn’t better than it is, but the film will probably please a certain audience (to reiterate: two pretty actresses kiss each other in it for, like, awhile). Up in the Air will almost definitely be nominated for multiple Academy awards, win a couple and then quickly thereafter evaporate from the zeitgeist. I’m less bothered by the films themselves than the extreme reactions they’ve engendered. Neither is worth getting excited about. Both are thoroughly mediocre.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSymGHqbZhA
Megan Fox tribute
Haven’t seen them yet, but great reviews, Karina.
Karina -
I’m really glad we met at the Museum of the Moving Image fellowship a few years back, mostly because it introduced me to your great reviews. I don’t know that there is anyone out there who is better at connecting the dots and cutting through to the heart of the matter than you are. Keep up the good work.
stephen
Karina: Spot on re JENNIFER’S BODY, particularly Kusama’s direction, which couldn’t feel flatter or more disinterested. We’re in the hands here of someone who must believe she’s stooping tot he genre in order to work out a sociopolitical agenda that barely exists.
And Cody’s screenplay is bad on a much deeper level than its canned kid-speak (”I’m not jealous!” “You are lime-green Jell-O!”)– it can’t even be bothered to retain consistency on even its own horror film logic. And as Stephanie Zacharek points out, that girl-on-girl action is nice, but David Lynch and John MacNaughton (WILD THINGS) managed to make similar scenes function as integral to the plot, not just as a graft-on to a rather confused and unconvincing portrait of the attraction between the sweet nerd and the vicious hottie that never for a minute makes any fundamental sense.
Even Johnny Simmons’ character notes the unbelievability of their friendship, which I took to be Cody’s subconscious way of at least addressing the inadequacy of her own premise. He’s also the one who says, “Our library has an occult section?” Yep, and that’s not the only absurdity JENNIFER’S BODY serves up that we’re supposed to lap up without question.
Thanks so much for your insights and for being a voice of reason on this picture.
Agreed with the last on all accounts.
“I’m less bothered by the films themselves than the extreme reactions they’ve engendered. Neither is worth getting excited about. Both are thoroughly mediocre.”
This statement can be accurately applied to SO many films that it makes my head spin. Thanks Karina!
Thank you for the good laugh. Did you just bet that you would disagree with everybody about Up in the air? What Jason Reitman did to you for you to decide that you would hate his film way before you have actually watched it?
There is only one thing very mediocre here and unfortunately is your so-called review!
@ billyb: Because GOD FORBID anyone criticize Jason Reitman’s Oscar darling. Were you so enamoured with the film that you decided to troll in with a contemptuously patronizing comment to everyone who didn’t gush over the film, or are you just an idiot in general?
Big fan of “Up In the Air.” (And equally big critic of “Juno.”)
Reitman grows up with this movie. It’s very hard for me to understand what KL is trying to get at with this line other than (accidentally, I hope) patronizing movie audiences: “They are supposed to tell stories in the most straightforward manner possible; they are supposed to make their choices seem invisible to the casual viewer so that the stars pop and the Big Emotional Moments sing.” Is she saying there are only two kinds of audiences for movies, those who are manipulated by formulaic “schmaltz” by sinister “They” puppet masters and those who, well, get it and escape those strings?
Just one point for all to think about: Guthrie’s “This Land . . .” is lived up to in this movie. The perfect selection for underlining the distancing of a character who is created to represent those flying above those suffering earth bound problems, “This Land . . “ problems. The economy and society is in tatters. Can you see it through the clouds? Clooney racks up the frequent flier Points, a hollow, false, and unfulfilling human goal–safe, materialistic, and when achieved, meaningless. This leaves plenty for the audience to think about as they walk out, past the New and Improved Tron playing in the theater next door. It’s a film not afraid, may I say it, to be real.
It’s hard for me to get past the unprofessional typos, but I’ll try. Regarding “Up in the Air”, most of the salvos here are cheap shots and hardly worth taking up. Other points are simply open for debate. You didn’t like that it was polished and well-crafted. I did. You didn’t think that it had depth or resonance. I did. Thank-you at least for acknowledging Farmiga’s performance, but you say little about Kendrick, who is really, really good in a role that so easily could have been given to some bland, “perky” starlet.
Calling “This Land Is Your Land” schmaltz reveals an ignorance of the song, a song about despair and economic devastation across America. Using a version of it with some sheen does not change what it’s about, just as gussying up mass firings with smooth words and a “packet” does not change what’s really happening. So the song fits the movie.
I guess it must have just seemed cool to take down a movie that struck you as popular and charmed.
well done
I disagree that “Up In the Air” doesn’t require the audience to ask any questions. Clooney’s character thinks he’s figured it all out: find the Someone (not even the One) and be with that person and have a life of meaning. But the world doesn’t let him; the woman’s taken, he finds out. The message is, therefore, no longer so unequivocal. (And it’s a kind of fresh take on the typical romantic comedy.)
Also, Clooney’s character didn’t really want to lecture McBride’s character about marrying his sister — at that point of the movie, he’s not quite party to this whole family-is-best, you can’t live without someone at home to hug thing — but he does lecture him to satisfy his other sister. He may very well have enabled a marriage that shouldn’t have happened to happen.
While this movie seems to lean to a message, it really has contradictions in it. Now, are they intentional and meant to give us pause? I actually don’t know. I’ve never felt this particular way about a movie before. I’m not sure I trust Reitman. BUT the contradictions are there.
However, the backpack lectures, which I think were meant to actually seem profound, are stupid and some of the satirical lines at the beginning of the movie suck.
Agreed. Up in the Air was complete surface level- a combination of thoughts and situations that plenty of movies have done better. A character with shallow goals? check. A crisis? check. a reversal? check. etc etc etc rinse and repeat.
I was disappointed by the lack of original thoughts and the lack of any thought that the director didn’t think he needed to completely spell out for the audience.
“A” says: “I was disappointed by the lack of original thoughts and the lack of any thought that the director didn’t think he needed to completely spell out for the audience.”
My problem with this and so much in movies and audience responses today is how the heavy hand of literalism crushes thought. Many “original thoughts” start in the store of information and experience a film goer brings to a serious movie. If you want to see formula in a movie at the cineplex, you’ll see formula. I haven’t seen a demanding experimental film in the mall since Von Trier’s magnificent “Dogville” was screened. (Probably slipped in entirely for Nicole Kidman recognition reasons.) This leaves us with blockbusters, animation atrocities, and star driven drivel. All are driven by an appeal to literalism. If you can recognize what’s in it, the audience will relate, tell their friends, fill the seats. Talk about boring, one-dimensional art and readings.
A movie like “Up In the Air” attempts to straddle this problem. Significant subplot theme lurking beneath the formula. Audiences aren’t buying it. Too demanding intellectually; the literal is too flat for audiences and (most) critics. Back to the $$$ basics: blockbusters, animation atrocities, and star driven drivel.