The Headly Surprise: Up in the Air

Welcome back to another round of The Headly Surprise! Today’s honoree is Vera Farmiga as Alex in Up in the Air. This 2009 film follows middle-aged Ryan (George Clooney) as he crisscrosses the country firing people for companies too chicken to do the firing themselves. It’s a bleak premise, and the movie carries that feeling throughout, not least because Ryan is, by nature and by habit, kind of a dick. He gives lectures on how to stay emotionally disconnected from others, and he has a trunkful of reasons why his job is helping people rather than devastating them. Of course, Ryan is played by the puppy-dog eyes and aww-whatever-I-did-I-promise-not-to-do-it-again-baby half-smile of George Clooney, so we can’t totally hate him.

Vera Farmiga Up in the Air

I ain't lookin' for love, but I am looking at you. (photo from http://www.altfg.com/blog/awards/sag-awards-2010-best-supporting-actress-7894/)

Our wayward hero meets Alex in a VIP airline lounge, and they bond over car rental discounts and credit card miles before having a passionate night in Ryan’s hotel room. They sync their calendars to meet up again in various cities around the country, as both their jobs keep them almost perpetually on the move. All goes well until Ryan’s young colleague Natalie lectures him on using Alex instead of committing to her. [**SPOILER ALERT**] Ryan feels inspired to ditch his emotionally stunted viewpoint, and he surprises Alex at her Chicago home in one of those grand romantic gestures that the movies have primed us to receive for decades. But uh oh! Alex is furious that he’s shown up, since she’s married with two kids, and he could ruin her home life with any displays of affection. Ryan returns to Omaha and his previous life a bit sadder and, of course, a bit wiser.

Alex’s Headly Surprise status rests in the way the movie handles this big reveal. There’s no commentary on how her cheating is immoral, or how it makes her a bad mother. In fact, the movie does a neat job of setting Alex up to be a Manic Pixie Dream Girl character, there to help Ryan find himself without having her own personality, needs, or desires; it then inverts those expectations by showing that this part of her life, which is so central to Ryan and the movie, is merely in her periphery. Her real life is with her family, and Ryan, fond as she is of him, is just an escape.

And she made no bones about that. Sure, she never told Ryan she was married, but from their first encounter, she sets up their boundaries so they’re both on the same page; she wants a no-strings-attached, uncomplicated, passionate affair. This is what Ryan wants too, and it’s why they work so well together, at least until he starts to fall in love with her. Then Natalie gives him that push over the edge into acknowledging his feelings and suddenly he doesn’t just want a passionate affair anymore.

About Natalie’s speech: she’s not wrong to tell a grown man to stop leading a woman on and tell her how he really feels and take steps toward building a life with her. She just happens to be wrong in this instance because she doesn’t know what Ryan does, namely, that Alex explicitly said what she did and did not want. Alex even expresses this at the end of the movie, saying how surprised she is at Ryan’s hurt, since she never said she wanted more than what they had and she’d thought they were on the same page with that.

This is a wonderful example of listening to what a woman says instead of listening to what you think she means, or what you want to hear. We are far too ready in these United States to dismiss a woman’s words as game playing or indecisiveness, rather than her actual thoughts and feelings. This has very real and dangerous consequences, of course–see all the men who stalk women who have told them they aren’t interested, or the men who rape women who say no, or the legislators who tell women that they don’t really want an abortion no matter what they say. There are other, less physically harmful, consequences to this line of thinking, too, like assuming a woman must be coyly angling for a commitment when she says she needs no such thing. This robs women of their agency and reinforces the idea that they’re untrustworthy, scheming beings instead of autonomous individuals fully capable of making their own decisions and expressing their own desires. If our needs and wants aren’t heard when we plainly state them, it’s no wonder some women start speaking in the code that’s expected of us, just to eventually get the desired result one way or another.

Anyway, Ryan is clearly upset by what he sees as Alex’s betrayal, but he doesn’t argue with her that she was anything but upfront about their relationship. The film honors her character as a three-dimensional person who makes the possibly ill-advised decision to cheat on her husband without punishing her explicitly. It hurts her to lose Ryan, but we get the sense that her life will carry on without him pretty well, and she’ll maybe think of him wistfully in a hotel here and there. That kind of complex characterization is rarely afforded to women who cheat in film; they’re usually shown as sluts or too simpleminded to make up their minds about which man to love more. Alex knows which man she loves and builds a life with, but she’s not above finding some good times on the side as she travels for one-third of the year. She’s not perfect, but she’s not a devil, and for that, she earns The Headly Surprise.

5 thoughts on “The Headly Surprise: Up in the Air

  1. In this sense, isn’t Up in the Air kind of the anti- 500 Days of Summer? There’s a similar dynamic with the male protagonist ignoring what the female love-interest has said she wants and having it backfire in his face. But her ability to have her own inner life (including, horrors, changing her mind about what she wants from life!) is undercut in 500 Days of Summer by the questioning of the protagonist and the “bitch” dedication that starts out the movie.

    • I still haven’t forced myself to watch 500 Days of Summer. I’ve read several reviews that say it’s actually so pitch-perfect about its sexist tropes that it’s self-aware and therefore ironic–could you see that at all in your viewing of it or is it just what it seems on the surface?

      • I didn’t see very many signs of self-awareness, but maybe I was too put off by the “bitch” beginning to notice them. And there’s the essay one of the screenwriters wrote for the Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1209556/500-Days-Summer-Revenge-writing-film-girl-dumped-you.html?ITO=1490
        He doesn’t seem very self-aware there.

        “It’s so pitch-perfect” is such an interesting argument for irony. Because something that was sincere wouldn’t fulfill its category perfectly? I don’t know. I feel like in that case the difference between sincerity and irony comes down to nothing more than the writer/creator/artist’s intentions. But in the end, intentions are little more than a footnote on how the work was experienced. (Rambling thoughts…)

  2. Oh dear. He sounds awful. This is not making me want to see the movie AT ALL, by the way.

    Hmm, I think the “pitch-perfect” argument is supposed to refer to something that has every single detail right for a specific category, or references past things in that category relentlessly, so that there’s no question the author has done her homework and is aware that it’s all a construction of hackneyed cliches and tired plots. So that may not be irony, true. And the audience’s experiences are half the equation, true. And I am on the verge of rambling too and have no further insights at this time, true.

    • Ha, yeah. I did appreciate that it’s a movie about a failed relationship, including both the ups and downs that that implies, and also did not make that failed relationship the end of the world for either character. So, yay for that? And it walks a fine line by letting Summer speak for herself and defend herself–which would be all right except that she doesn’t owe him an explanation and I never felt like the screenwriters realized that (as you can pick up from that Daily Mail essay).

      No, I think irony was the right word. It’s that situation where the moviemakers are winking at the audience saying, ‘It might look like we mean this, but you and I both know we don’t, amirite?’ And I see now what pitch-perfect meant…maybe it’s just bringing up all of my unexplored problems with irony and how, at this point in time, it’s kind of a useless tool. Or maybe just most people don’t have the skills to use it well. I don’t know. It seems like sometimes people say ‘oh, it’s meant ironically’ when there is literally know way to tell by looking at the piece in question that it isn’t sincere. What’s the point of that? What is it actually supposed to be doing?

Dearest Fellow Travelers, tell me what you're thinking!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s