To say that the book version and film version of Up In The Air are different is the understatement of the century. However, both versions are exploring hope and the human element of compassion trying to force their way through the cracks of the pavement, or through the cracks of the bureaucratic world of big business.
Set to the music of different times in American life, the message is understandably presented differently in each medium. The novel was written during an economic upswing, and no one really thought twice about the Airworld or corporate America. Firing employees, while unpleasant, was still viewed as business as usual,...unless, of course, you were the one being fired. The film's message was the same, but with a huge economic downturn gripping the country, the message was presented with a great deal of positive feelings, and the movie went to great pains to end the film on a confident, upbeat note...as the fired workers came to terms with their dismissal and beheld the future with far more hope than might be expected.
Were the movie's creators speaking to the American public, I have to wonder?
It was an appealing approach. During harsh economic times, emotional disorders rise
(http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100600029). If the movie had clung faithfully to Kirn's original ideas in the novel, the film would have absolutely bombed, if indeed Clooney had even accepted the role. Post-911, with the economy in the toilet, the last thing the American public would have wanted to view was an obsessive-compulsive business exec firing people, giving morale speeches to zombies in hotel conference rooms, a sister with mental illness, and a somewhat dismal ending with a brain tumor. While the message of hope and human compassion exists in the novel, in Ryan's endless quest for the airmiles, it needs to be unraveled from the dreariness. That just doesn't make for good film, pure and simple.
The novel demonstrated one man's rejection of the cold, impersonal world of modern American business, devoid of hope and human compassion (beyond superficial and extremely brief encounters), just in time to enjoy his last years with his family. The film demonstrated a good man's efforts to give hope to those unfortunates that suffer the indignities of dismissal from the cold, impersonal world of modern American business, even while his own personal hope gets trampled occasionally. In the end, however, hope for the future is the underlying theme, a different future perhaps, but worthy of exploring.
On a funny note, I have to thank Professor Cline for a humorous moment this weekend. I was watching the film, and Clooney and 'Alex' had just had their...um, encounter, near the beginning of the film, when my daughter walked in.
"Daddy, why is that woman's butt on the TV?"
As I spluttered a moment, my wife, sitting nearby on her laptop, said, "It's okay, hunny, I don't think your daddy minded much." She glared at me and took our daughter into the playroom.
"Um, hun?" I called. "My teacher is making me watch this. You don't actually think I liked that, do you?"
hee hee
Picture link:
James,
ReplyDeleteGood post. I thought you explained the differences in the book and the film in good detail. I also think you did a good job of incorporating all of the things that impacted the differences. I agree that if film were based off of the same message as the book, it would have a very different impact on it's viewers due to the significant events and economic times that occurred during the two time frames. It seems as though books have a better rating than films if they are dreary and depressing.
I'm unsure which is your thesis statement, so I'll respond to the two paragraphs that seem to have elements of a thesis statement. If the first paragraph contains your thesis statement it appears you're going to prove the ways in which the book and movie are similar rather than dissimilar. That would be an interesting read, as I think most papers will be on the differences. If "In the end, however, hope for the future is the underlying theme, a different future perhaps, but worthy of exploring" is your thesis statement, that seems fairly strong and with some detail it could be nicely rounded out.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Americans go to the movies to escape their day to day problems, not to relive them in agony. If the movie would have been true to Kirn’s work, then it would have flopped. Kirn’s work hits a true, but sour note of our economy and inner persona. Reitman in contrast, went out of his way to create sympathy for the fired and for Ryan. One technique he used to accomplish this was Natalie; her reactions to firing people were overstated, to say the least. Natalie was also able to break Ryan’s hard, protective exterior. Reitman was cleaver to use a naive, innocent, and over-emotional girl to create a more positive uplifting movie. I am surprised that Kirn approved the movie script, what a butcher job…he must have needed the cash. The ending was the most annoying part of the movie…I mean really? Again, you hit the nail on the head and put it beautifully into words. I look forward to reading your paper.
ReplyDeleteWow man, great job! I really enjoy your writing style. You are very clever with how you put things and have a way with words! I can definitely see where you're going with your essay and I think it's going to be great! I can definitely relate to your child walking in on no so keen times, I have a 2 year old and a 6 year old! SO thanks for sharing that fatherly moment! Haha. Good luck on your essay. I think it's going to be a great read! I look forward to that post next week!
ReplyDelete-Kyle Audis
Really nice job on the post. I agree with a lot of what you are say. Including if the film would have followed the book it would have bombed. It does help when you throw Clooney into the main roll. HA I also agree with you that you can tell the difference in the american "music" in the movie compared to the book. Again nice job I am not to sure if this is a intro but really nice Job.
ReplyDelete