Phillip Bradford
April 22, 2012
Laura Cline
English 102
Up in the Air
While the movie and
film “Up in the Air” are both about the openly secluded life of a
man who's job it is to fire people, and a pro at it too. The two are
their own separate beasts, the protagonist Ryan Bingham is at heart a
lone wolf, there is no room for human connection in his line of work.
Bingham is not only in the business of firing people, he also
lectures about his business philosophy in the book the character
comes off as a cold unfeeling businessman who one can connect with
only if they too were a unabashed cynic with six figures in their
bank account. In the film George Clooney's character with Ivan
Rietman direction immediately adds a likeability to the character.
Given the black and white jaded cynicism of the character in the book
who you wouldn't even want to be in the same room as, where as
Clooney's character however seems to have a light air about him, he's
someone you could relate to in someway even if it was just mocking
the suckers on the plane. Bingham in the book had little purpose or
message, where Clooney's speaks to a more modern economic climate,
one an audience can actually relate to.
When you dig even
deeper, you see that it's not just the bad development of the
character in the book that didn't translate, but that it also lacked
a “side kick” that was in the movie. The character development
and the addition of a new character, Natalie Keener who may replace
Bingham, made him and the plot easier to understand and relate to. He
became a man that the audience could sympathize with despite his job
of firing people. In the book your insight is provided by Binghams
inner monologue which at times can be well put and even a little
humorous although it still does little to help the reader relate to
him. Thanks to Natalie's addition, Clooney seems like a man who's
prime is passing, a man who seems to have everything figured out is
now given a very humanistic side with the threat of having his
position revoked. He is becoming outmoded and that is a scenario
anyone can understand even if they haven't actually experienced it.
When the book was
written the world was in a much different place economically, the
book was released before the recession and, as a result, the job of
Bingham did not have resonate the same as it did in movie form.
Bingham's job does not seem as important and acts more as an excuse
to keep him away from than as a reason. The movie was created for an
audience that is struggling economically and Bingham's role is to
protect the companies and offer the newly laid off employees hope
(however false it may be). The character in the movie understands his
role and how sensitive it is and has turned it into an art. However,
this results in him distancing himself from others. These changes
based on the economic situation in the country resulted in further
character development.
The addition of
Natalie also created sympathy for Bingham in that it showed just how
important his job is. The movie was created for a country in economic
turmoil with the possibility that those in the audience would have
been laid off. It is difficult to create sympathy for the person that
could have told them they no longer have a job. However, Natalie
shows the audience how important who and how you lose your job. She
believes it can all be done in an efficient impersonal way. This ends
in disaster when one employee loses their job and commits suicide.
Natalie, devastated, decides to quit. Bingham, with all his flaws,
understands people. This creates character development not seen in
the book.
In an articled in
Forbes magazine Klaus Kneale discusses “layoff specialists” or
“workplace planners”. Those hired by companies to downsize and
keep morale up in the process of lay offs. The article discusses why
it takes a specialist instead of others in the company. The
specialists can make the tough decisions while keeping the company
and its employees safe. The use of Natalie in the movie showed the
positive results of Clooney (Bingham) being detached from others. He
was able to view the job objectively and do what was needed to lay
people off in a sensitive, quick, and safe way. While it is not
pretty it is a necessary job.
In conclusion the
differences are stark even with the same backbone, all things
considered the book is still a well writen and insightful look into
the modern business culture, but surely few people can associate with
that culture in a way that the author is trying to engage the
audience. While the movie engages the audience on a social,
satirical, emotional, and economical level that the book, coming from
a well off businessman's perspective was unable to do. The movie,
overall, connected with the current problems through Bingham's
development and telling the story of those that have been laid off.
Works Cited
Kirn,
Walter. Up in the Air. New York: Anchor Books, 2001. Print.
Klaus
Kneale. “You're Probably Doing Your Layoffs All Wrong.” Forbes.
Feb. 12, 2009. Web. April
0212_kneale.html
Up
in the Air. Dir.
Jason Reitman. Paramount Pictures, 2009. DVD.
