Up in the Air, the new film from director Jason Reitman, feels at times like an overlong commercial for American Airlines, Hilton Hotels and Hertz Car Rental. Yet it expects to be taken seriously as a study in the loneliness of the long-distance business traveller.
That battle between filthy lucre and artistic pretension is just one of the many conflicting impulses tearing the film apart. Up in the Air is about The Recession and Alienation in Late Capitalist Society. It is an attempt to tap into The Zeitgeist. But it also wants to be a romantic comedy. The result is a film that manages to be simultaneously slick and uneven.
Reitman, the talented director of Juno and Thank You for Smoking, gets the film off to a promising start as we’re introduced to Ryan Bingham, played by George Clooney.
Bingham is employed in what is euphemistically called career transition counselling. The company he works for is an inversion of a recruitment agency — it offers outsourced firing services.
In the early and most enjoyable parts of the film, Up in the Air plays out as a hilarious send-up of corporate foibles in the midst of an economic meltdown. Characters in the film spin out buzzwords like “glocal” (a contraction of global and local) and dream up ways to fire people with the maximum efficiency using scripted responses and videoconferencing.
The corporate love of mystical mumbo-jumbo isn’t spared either — Bingham lyrically describes himself as a guardian ferrying wounded souls through limbo. He has a sideline business as a motivational speaker who imparts wisdom about how to avoid commitments and entanglements.
Clooney doesn’t miss a beat as he glides from city to city to tell hapless employees that they have lost their jobs. He radiates charm as he glibly convinces those whose services he terminates that a change in their lives might be for the best.
Bingham’s best relationships are with travel brands (thus the many product placements), not people. He has made a philosophy out of avoiding emotional entanglements in favour of a life spent in aeroplanes, airport lounges and business hotels; his major aims are to keep moving and to accumulate 10m air miles. “The slower we move, the faster we die,” says Bingham, who spends 320 days a year away from home.
Up in the Air is based on a book of the same name by Walter Kirn, which was published in the midst of the 2001 dot-com boom. It deviates from the book by introducing a love interest for Bingham in the form of Alex Goran (played by Vera Farmiga of The Departed) as well as a young colleague and surrogate daughter, Natalie Keener.
Soon after these two characters are introduced into the film, it starts to change gears. His relationships with the two women, alongside his sister’s looming wedding, prompt Bingham to start questioning his way of life. The move from comedy to romantic comedy to moralistic drama isn’t a smooth one. It doesn’t help that Clooney can’t seem to channel the existential anguish to make his character’s transition a convincing one.
Keener (played by Anna Kendrick of Twilight fame) is an ambitious whippersnapper with a bright idea for saving the company money by firing people over a Web camera.
Bingham takes her out on the road to show her the ropes, keenly aware that her idea could spell the end of his nomadic lifestyle. Kendrick is convincing as a know-it-all who quickly finds herself out of her depth, but some of her exchanges with Clooney simply don’t ring true.
The initial scenes between Goran and Bingham fizz with chemistry as the pair trade barbs and kisses. Goran, a fellow nomad, tells Bingham: “Think of me as yourself, only with a vagina.” It’s not long, however, before a lovelorn Bingham is running through airports in slow motion like a character from Love, Actually. Is Reitman subverting rom-com conventions or is he playing it straight? Either way, it doesn’t work.
Many of the people that Up in the Air shows reacting to the loss of their jobs are Americans telling their real-life stories to Reitman’s camera — and one can’t help wondering what they really make of his conclusion that love is all you need. Up in the Air isn’t kind enough to its characters to be satisfying as a romantic comedy.
Neither is it hard enough on them to make for convincing satire. It’s not as winsome as Juno, nor as biting as Thank You for Smoking. It doesn’t reconcile its tragic and comic elements as deftly as About Schmidt or Sideways. Much like Ryan Bingham, Up in the Air is lost in limbo. — Lance Harris, TechCentral
- Subscribe to our free daily newsletter
- Follow us on Twitter or on Facebook




Earlier today I was telling a colleague just how much I enjoyed this film. I think because of the flaws you mentioned, not hitting the characters hard enough, or not being kind enough, made it light and tolerable.
But there was no redemption. Bingham hit his mark, and for what? (Yes, the perks seem cool, but thanks to the little kinks, those perks turned out to be useless to Bingham)
Up in the Air was a bit preachy, but for some reason, i didn’t mind hearing it. I dunno, I liked it, I’d watch it again and I’d recommend it. But it is worth noting that i am a huge Clooney fan, the man can do no wrong in my eyes.
Thanks again for the great review!
Anna Kendrick was in Twilight, not Buffy the Vampire Slayer
Up in the air might have been lost in translation
Agreed, thanks for the review, and @senorblinky fo the comment.
For some reason, I find myself reading movie reviews on a tech site?? Sort of incongruous but it works. Maybe the light relief angle. But keep them coming!
Anyway, I reckon I’ll check this one out … a mate of mine in Jhb has had the misfortune of having been required by his employers to retrench several (in fact many) people over the past year, it will be interesting to get some insight on the kind of hell he has had to go through.
PS – just saw a typo – when is someone going to develop spellcheck for postings? (though that would then tend to overstate the intelligence of some posters …)
@Bob: Despite best efforts of writer and editor, the occasional typo will sneak its way in. We want to zap ‘em all, so please tell us what you have spotted.
Thanks for the correction, Ryan – we’ll change it.
If you enjoy Hollywood-style montages of ‘having fun’, ‘falling in love’, ‘travelling’ and ‘reflecting on life’, this film’s a winner. There seem to be montages every couple of scenes – and they proliferate as the film goes on… and on.
There are other reasons to like the film though besides the clichés. For example, if you are looking for a justification for having given up on that glamorous life of travel and having fun – this film shows that you made the right decision.
It’s kind of a morality tale of the 1950s meets the current recession and to me, the ending was predictable and condescending.
After the first 15 minutes or so, even seeing Clooney’s wry smile didn’t make it less cringe worthy. And I like him too.