A brief question of aesthetics with Jason Reitman, director and co-writer of “Up in the Air”
By Scott Marks
Jason Reitman recently spent a day at the Hyatt Regency La Jolla at Aventine hyping his new film “Up in the Air.” The romantic comedy/drama that stars George Clooney as a frequent-flier mile fetishist/corporate grim reaper who travels cross country firing people opened Dec. 4 citywide.
The conversation seemed to be going so well that I actually got the nerve to bring up a certain tendency in American cinema that causes me to choke back my popcorn. After all, considering that I have never committed so much as one frame to celluloid, who better to tell an Oscar-bound auteur how to ply his trade?
Scott: I’m going to hit you with one little complaint that’s one of my pet peeves about movies.
Jason Reitman: All right.
Q: Why so many close-ups?
A: Really?
Q: There are a lot of close-ups and two shots in this movie.
A: What do you like? What would you prefer?
Q: I’d prefer it if you had pulled the camera back, especially in a situation like this, to see how these characters relate to an environment that is so crucial to them. What is it about the way they relate to their environment and what does it say about them?
A: I just like being lost in conversations.
Q: But that’s called radio. There are some beautiful exterior shots in the film, particularly the one outside the Hyatt Hotel where Ryan (George Clooney) is in the room on the right and Natalie (Anna Kendrick) is in the room on the left. This tells me so much about these characters without one word of dialogue.
A: I know, and that’s why that moment is there. My point of view has always been I want to establish beautiful shots that remind you that this is cinematic. Once we get into the dialogue I want you to just listen. I want you to be in the conversation right over their shoulder, looking into the person’s eyes. It’s not time to be fancy at that point and it’s not time to talk about the location. At that point it’s about what these people feel. What are they saying … how would you feel if you were in this conversation yourself?
Q: I’ve seen this movie twice and find the ending so sad, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
A: Half the audience thinks it’s a downer, half the audience thinks it’s hopeful.
Q: And I’m not complaining about downer. I tend to like that.
A: I like downer too. It really all depends where you think he’s going at the end. Some people think that he’s getting back on the plane to the same exact place he’s been living cyclically for the rest of time, and half of the people think he’s going to pick a city and try and find someone to share his life with. It depends on what you believe. Christopher Buckley once said to me, “When a movie works, it’s a mirror.” I think this one is a mirror. You’re just a glass-half-empty guy.
Q: And I like this movie. What does that say?
A: I like sad movies, too. Maybe I’m a glass-half-empty guy, too.
Q: The ending just struck me as so melancholic.
A: (Smiling.) I only know you so well and I’m going to guess on your general age and the fact that you work in an industry that is firing people left, right and center and where newspapers are closing down constantly that this movie probably spoke to you in a very personal way. You saw yourself in this character a lot and that’s probably why you saw the melancholy aspects.
