Up in the Air (2009)

2011 #25
Jason Reitman | 105 mins | TV | 15 / R

Up in the AirSometimes, it’s best to just come clean: I don’t have much to say about Up in the Air.

The plot, as you’ll likely know (it was an Oscar Best Picture nominee after all, meaning everyone’s heard of it… for a couple of years, anyway), concerns George Clooney playing someone who flies around America firing people for bosses too chicken to do it themselves. He’s very proud of the air miles he’s accumulated. He meets Vera Farmiga who also does something that involves flying around the country a lot and begins an on-off sex-based relationship with her. Anna Kendrick joins Clooney’s company and creates a plan to do his job via videoconferencing, thereby saving tonnes (sorry, tons — this is an American film) of cash by not having to fly people like Clooney all around the country. Clooney does not like this, so takes her out on the road for a bit to show her the reality of the job.

That’s probably a fair chunk of the film explained, which is not something I usually like to do, but the real point of it — whatever, exactly, that point may be — occurs once all these events are set in motion. And there are a few twists to the plot anyway, which I’m not even close to revealing there.

Clooney and girl 1Cowriter-director Jason Reitman has created a surprisingly likeable film. It’s easy to see how Clooney’s character — very much the centre of the piece — could be irritating or vapid or any number of other negative adjectives, but instead he’s… well, he’s George Clooney, isn’t he? He’s all charm. If you were going to be fired, you’d probably want George Clooney to be doing it. For a character who is essentially an expansion of the Fight Club Narrator’s “single-serving friend” concept, he gets to become quite rounded and go on quite the journey. (Not just plane journeys either. Ho ho.)

The tone is pitched firmly at comedy-drama (or “dramedy”, if you’re American), which — as we know from experience — means it’s neither the most dramatic nor funniest film you’ll ever see. It does both nicely enough though, eliciting laughs and smiles where appropriate (and sometimes where not, naturally) and providing food for thought on occasion. It might be airplane food, but not everything’s cordon bleu.

Clooney and girl 2Up in the Air got its Best Picture nom in the first year the Oscars went back to 10 nominations for the big prize. I’m not sure many would disagree that it’s one of The Other Ones — one of the ones that quite probably wouldn’t’ve been there if it hadn’t been for the category doubling in size. And if it was, it’d be The Other One — the token indie/comedy nomination that everyone knows isn’t going to win but was quite good all the same.

So I liked Up in the Air, and I even had more to say about it than I thought, but I didn’t love it. Indeed, while I’m not intending to avoid it as one would a bad film, I feel no particular desire to ever watch it again. It is, if you will, a single-serving film.

4 out of 5

Exam (2009)

2011 #2
Stuart Hazeldine | 97 mins | Blu-ray | 15

ExamThere’s an argument that the less you know going into any film the better. Naturally there are some films this applies to more than others, and Exam is one such film. Eight young professional types go into a job exam/interview; the next hour-and-a-half is all mysteries and riddles — which is why you wouldn’t want to know too much.

The film occurs in real-time (more or less) in a single room. These are two narrative tricks I always enjoy the potential of. I’m not saying every film should be set in a single room and/or take place in real-time, but when pulled off well either is an enjoyable feat. Exam succeeds in both. Real-time is, I think, easy enough with the right story if you put your mind to it (though the Johnny Depp-starring Nick of Time fails to make it work, in my opinion), but making an engrossing and — even harder — exciting film set in one room is a challenging prospect. Even in a film like Cube, though it takes place on one identical set, the characters are actually moving from room to room.

Writer-director Hazeldine’s screenplay is inventive enough to keep the story rolling throughout the entire film, barely pushing the tale past the natural end of its ideas, while the direction and camerawork keep it visually interesting without tipping over into pointless flashiness. I suspect he may be one to watch, though almost 18 months after Exam’s UK release he doesn’t seem to have any directing projects lined up (at least according to IMDb).

CandidatesSuch a contained story relies heavily on its characters and the actors’ performances. Largely a cast of un- (or little-) knowns, all are decent — one or two may be subpar, but I’ve seen a lot worse. I don’t quite understand how some viewers can find White, played by Luke Mably, to be a completely likeable character in spite of his obvious flaws — he has his moments, but surely he’s not agreeable overall? Not a jot. That said, his is the standout part, a scene-stealing performance from Mably. There’s no clear-cut audience-favourite, which (from reading a few reviews) seems to be a problem for some viewers. As far as I’m concerned, it’s a good thing: never mind the realism of there being one perfect person every viewer will love, audience-favourites will either predictably win or be shockingly dispatched, so what’s the point?

As it is, various viewers may root for various applicants; and even if you like none of them, it’s not necessarily a problem: the audience is more-or-less positioned as Candidate 9, solving the puzzle along with the characters on screen. It’s the mark of a good mystery that it drags the audience in to trying to guess it too. (Or perhaps it would just be the mark of a bad mystery that it couldn’t even manage that, so maybe it’s not a point of praise as much a point of not-criticising. You may take your choice on this point.) There are plenty of red herrings tossed liberally around, many of which are well-used but perhaps don’t have the part you’d expect them to play come the ultimate revelations. Which is fine — He's got this exam all tied upit’s quite nice to find a plot that doesn’t feel the need to tie everything in to its reveal; a plot that can wrong-foot you by occasionally focusing on something that’s ultimately irrelevant.

The most major flaw is perhaps the final few minutes. Exam ends with a compact array of twists, all of them well-structured — they grow neatly from what we’ve been told already, as any good twist should, rather than hurling themselves in from nowhere for the sake of it — but there’s also rather too much information. I like finding out what was going on, but ambiguity can be good too (look at Cube) — so on one hand I’m pleased we’re told things, but on the other I think it’s overdone, providing too much backstory in a rush to explain everything the filmmakers have dreamt up. Dialled back a bit it would hit the nail on the head.

I also don’t know how it well the film would stand up to repeat viewings. The advantage it has in being a small, little-seen film is that you can go in knowing virtually nothing about what’s going to happen, and play along with the guessing game the characters are involved in — this is the film’s primary joy. But with all the answers revealed, would it have as much to offer when watched again? I can’t answer that, obviously. It’s certainly possible — Cube (which I’m mentioning repeatedly because there are numerous similarities) still works — but there’s no guarantee. The story poses some thematic questions — about motivation, morals, that kind of thing — for those who care to ponder them, The other candidatesand films that invite pondering tend to invite repeat viewing; but then again it works equally well (better, ultimately) as a straight-up “what’s going on?” thriller.

Nonetheless, as a first-time experience, Exam is an intriguing and entertaining head-scratcher. It was a very early contender for my end-of-year top ten — and four months later, still is. A borderline 5.

4 out of 5

The UK network TV premiere of Exam is on Movie Mix (aka more>movies) tonight, Wednesday 18th March 2015, at 9pm.

Once (2006)

2011 #20
John Carney | 83 mins | TV | 15 / R

OnceOnce is a very modern indie musical. And I mean indie as in “indie film”, not “indie music”. Lord save us from a musical of indie music.

The musical bit is both traditional and revisionist. The songs still reveal character and emotion, in the way they do in all good musicals, but here the lead characters are a pair of musicians and the songs are (mostly) placed in a plausible context — strumming on the bus, writing lyrics to a tune, recording in a studio, that kind of thing. The songs are of a folky variety. I don’t know how essential it is to like this style of music to enjoy the film — there are quite a few songs, but by placing them in a real world way Carney largely avoids the allegations of implausibility that are usually levelled at musicals. Perhaps this is a musical for the non-musical-fan, then. Personally I liked them enough to buy the soundtrack… but I suppose that’s meaningless if you don’t know the kind of music I like.

The visual aesthetic of the film is even more unlike your standard musical, shot handheld and digital video-y, it could almost pass itself off as a documentary. Carney and his cast don’t overdo the storytelling either, allowing looks and scenes and montage to do the work when others would’ve plumped for expositional dialogue. One of the film’s big reveals isn’t even in English, and nor is it subtitled, making for a “whisper at the end of Lost in Translation” moment (except you can hear this one, so a translation can be found online if you want to know). Once on a hillsideIt’s a testament to the strength of the lead performances and the story they create that it’s not until the end credits roll you realise you never even knew their names.

The most ready comparison is Before Sunrise — “Before Sunrise with songs” might be the pat way to describe it. It’s not a rip-off — not Before Sunrise: The Musical — but there are plenty of similarities in terms of style and content. It didn’t quite click with me in the way that Linklater’s film did, perhaps because I’m not a musician. Equally that’s placing unfair weight on Once: there’s absolutely no need to be a musician to enjoy it; it’s a solid romantic drama, a very real-world (as opposed to rom-com) romance.

I’m beginning to think I’ve underrated it, actually…

4 out of 5