Red Mosquito

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

tragabigzanda wrote:Because the director knows something that the viewer could never figure out based on even those most scrutinized viewing: that she’s a liar.

I’m find with directors revealing things, big or small, that are alluded to or hinted at in such a way that makes the viewer say “Ah! Great filmmaking! I did not see that coming, but in retrospect, the signs were there all along.” But that’s not the case here. She’s presented as someone who is emotionally available for Clooney, and the reversal feels like a cheap shot meant to advance the plot and develop Clooney’s character. Farming a delivers a warm, of emotionally independent, woman, until all of a sudden she isn’t.

Again, I’m not sure that Reitman understands how actual people operate.

tragabigzanda wrote:And what makes me even more angry is that Reitman is trading on his name and Hollywood connections to advance a career that I don’t really think he deserves to have.

VinylGuy wrote:why? Its pretty much explained in the parking lot scene. Unfair how?

Because i adore how direct that parking lot scene is.

Also, please...the one making the mistake is Clooney...how fucked up is that he drives to her home???

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mickey wrote:Probably important to note that Up In the Air was adapted from a Walter Kirn novel.

Did you read the book? I thought about picking it up after I saw the movie. But I never did.

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mickey wrote:Probably important to note that Up In the Air was adapted from a Walter Kirn novel.

Did you read the book? I thought about picking it up after I saw the movie. But I never did.

Me either. But Walter ran in tangential circles while we were in Vegas, so I have a number of friends who know him and his work pretty well, and the consensus is that the movie's pretty close to the book.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:And what makes me even more angry is that Reitman is trading on his name and Hollywood connections to advance a career that I don’t really think he deserves to have.

And there it is.

I respect your opinions and I don't anything you've talked about today has been at all out of bounds or stupid and irrational. I can see where most of it is coming from. It's just a difference of opinion. My view on a lot of this is different. So be it. It's been a really good, fun and respectful conversation. It's been awesome!

But I also know you well enough to suspect that what you said above here is really the heart of it all. That sentiment is super consistent with a lot of other stances you've taken. Nothing wrong with that. But I do wonder if it's too big of a thing for you to overcome regarding Reitman's work. It's like me and Harmony Korine. I can't take him seriously. His later movies (Springbreakers, Beach Bum) might be great. He might be a genuine artist, but I can't get that spoiled, shitty, disingenuous asshat in those old Letterman interviews out of my mind long enough to give him a fair shot.

He once said he hated everything about storytelling conventions and he made a film (Gummo) specifically to piss of people who are storytellers. He said he was beyond all that and he wanted to prove people who cared about character arcs and standard storytelling structure were idiots. Fuck that guy. I haven't been able to let that shit go.

I hope none of this sounds shitty or like I'm selling you short. I really don't mean it that way. We all have biases that color how we perceive the world -- and (maybe especially?) art. I'm glad you brought it up. Because I think it makes a lot of sense given your values (as I understand them based on expressions on a message board).

I have no problem with this, it’s certainly warranted as I am on record as both harboring resentment towards certain artists for their station in life, and for not really being interested in separating the artist from the art…

But I just don’t think it applies here. I just find with his movies, time and time again, he drives characters that way to me as wholly unrealistic, and he has the benefit of getting some of the most talented names in the business to perform the parts great effort. I really believe he’s one of the worst filmmakers I’ve ever seen have a successful career, And I really believe that his last name is a big part of that.

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mickey wrote:Probably important to note that Up In the Air was adapted from a Walter Kirn novel.

Did you read the book? I thought about picking it up after I saw the movie. But I never did.

Me either. But Walter ran in tangential circles while we were in Vegas, so I have a number of friends who know him and his work pretty well, and the consensus is that the movie's pretty close to the book.

Rad. I should check it out. I kind of hate that I haven't yet.

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mickey wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

Mickey wrote:Probably important to note that Up In the Air was adapted from a Walter Kirn novel.

Did you read the book? I thought about picking it up after I saw the movie. But I never did.

Me either. But Walter ran in tangential circles while we were in Vegas, so I have a number of friends who know him and his work pretty well, and the consensus is that the movie's pretty close to the book.

Rad. I should check it out. I kind of hate that I haven't yet.

I mention it not to like name drop but only to suggest that my impression is that Up In The Air is basically a Walter Kirn movie directed by Reitman, in the same way that No Country for Old Men is basically a McCarthy movie directed by the Coens. It doesn't lessen the achievement, but I think there's a reason it stands head and shoulders about Reitman's other works.

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Because the director knows something that the viewer could never figure out based on even those most scrutinized viewing: that she’s a liar.

I’m find with directors revealing things, big or small, that are alluded to or hinted at in such a way that makes the viewer say “Ah! Great filmmaking! I did not see that coming, but in retrospect, the signs were there all along.” But that’s not the case here. She’s presented as someone who is emotionally available for Clooney, and the reversal feels like a cheap shot meant to advance the plot and develop Clooney’s character. Farming a delivers a warm, of emotionally independent, woman, until all of a sudden she isn’t.

Again, I’m not sure that Reitman understands how actual people operate.

Again, I'm not sure why she can't be both a liar and an emotionally independent woman. That's a pretty solid example of the very thing we started off talking about -- nuance.

But set that aside...

The film is entirely from Clooney's perspective. He narrates the film, even. Is there a single scene that he isn't in? Part of what the movie is about is Clooney's perception of the world and the people around him. Not seeing the turn coming is essential, not only for his journey but the allow the audience to experience what he's experiencing. It's masterful. And I love the complications and nuance that come with it. Most films about social removed people who need to learn how to love would end with him learning to trust and falling in love. Reitman doesn't let his story be so easy. It's messy and complicated and the audience is left wondering if their protagonist has been right the whole time or not! It's well earned and intellectually honest gut punch.

Personally, I'm fine with the audience learning information along with its characters. In fact, I'd prefer it. The audience shouldn't be ahead of the POV characters. I'll take that kind of storytelling any day of the week over the audience seeing/knowing things that the characters don't know. Like when the statues or a painting moves in a horror film and the audience sees it but none of the characters do. That's cheap.

durdencommatyler wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:why? Its pretty much explained in the parking lot scene. Unfair how?

Because i adore how direct that parking lot scene is.

Also, please...the one making the mistake is Clooney...how fucked up is that he drives to her home???

There is some fantastic, uncomfortable complexity in their relationship and Clooney's overstepping of boundaries. Again, the film is challenging this character's perceptions and his entitled expectations. What happens is shitty for a lot of reasons but it makes for wonderful storytelling and a rewarding film.

Steve Albini wrote:Whenever there's active promotion on the part of somebody else, whenever I see somebody all dolled up for a fancy photograph and someone's handing out flyers or whenever there's active promotion for something like that, as an imposition on my day, I hate all those people and I want them to fail. I have a visceral reaction to advertising and promotion. There's just something about salesmanship that grates on me on a very base level and I react very negatively towards it. I want those people to suffer and I want their enterprises to fail.