Feminist Review: Up in the Air

Much to my chagrin, my boyfriend insisted I watch "Up in the Air" starring George Clooney (you know, the one that got nominated for a million Oscars?). To me, the previews made the movie seem so boring and George Clooney just does not excite me. Anywhoo, I started watching it and even though I pouted for the first half hour (I’m such a difficult girlfriend!) I found some parts of the movie quite interesting and ripe for feminista analysis! Let’s jump right into it. **spoilers below!**
The women. Oh how much potential this movie had to give complexity to its female characters! Keyword: potential. The movie failed. First, there’s Vera Farmiga’s character, Alex, who is George Clooney’s love interest and as she calls herself, basically himself with a vagina. I felt uncomfortable from the very beginning because I knew what they were trying to do, but it felt more along the lines of what Ariel Levy calls a "FCP" or female chauvinist pig. This may be a contentious part of this post, but it felt like an integral part of empowerment was her total and utter sexual availability. And OF COURSE this can be an empowering representation. A woman who wants sex as often as the next guy is a truer reflection of reality, because, duh, women have sex drives too, contrary to what patriarchy would like us to believe. So at that point, I was willing to bite my tongue and wade through the rest of the movie before I gave it the official stamp of wannabe-empowerment. (It didn’t help though that during the post-coital scenes, Vera’s perfection of a body was put on display while Clooney’s was hidden from view. It seems even in the "deep" and soul-hitting movies, women’s bodies are being put on sale.)
Then there’s Anna Kendrick’s character, Natalie Keener. OH MAN was I excited by the introduction of her character!!! As she is introduced, it is clear that Natalie serves as a stark contrast and fierce competitor to the aging, "more traditional" George Clooney character. I remember even saying out loud, "Wooooow. This should be an interesting dynamic!" What a ripe set up to dismantle notions of not only gender, but age.
But eh. Even this falls flat. The fierce, ready-to-change-the-world Natalie eventually reveals herself to be a babbling, crying, obsessed with her boyfriend young womyn. Not saying that young womyn haven’t gone through this (hell, not saying I haven’t gone through this!) But once… just ONCE… I’d love to see a representation of a young womyn who isn’t obsessed with her boyfriend and whose life goals include so much more than whether or not she gets married. We can officially file this under unoriginal, rom-com trope.
And around this point in the movie, I am brought back to my analysis of Alex, Clooney’s would-be luvah.

Of course, as should be predicted, Clooney’s anti-social, non-committal persona begins to soften around the edges as he invites Alex to his sister’s wedding! She is mighty reluctant, but eventually agrees, and I find myself screaming PLEASE OH PLEASE DON’T END UP TOGETHER!!!!
And yes, I got what I wanted. They didn’t end up together, but another twist ensured that my feminist fantasy of a movie was thoroughly smashed. In a moment of deep revelation, Clooney travels across the nation to profess his deep love for Alex. And it turns out….. SHE’S MARRIED WITH KIDS. Oh.. you won’t even understand how disappointed I was with this. Of course, our "George Clooney with a vagina," strong, independent traveler with a healthy dose of sexual appetite… is actually a facade. She reveals that the person on-the-go who Clooney fell so hard for is actually her "alter-ego" if you will. GOD FORBID a womyn actually BE these things without hiding it all behind a second, more acceptable reality filled with life-choices that make people smile and feel comfortable. She’s essentially your "Sasha Fierce"-complex. A womyn can do anything she wants, say anything she wants… as long as it’s JUST her weird, dark, alter-ego, right?! Sigh.
I’m sure folks might disagree with me and argue, hey, I interpreted it this or this way and it was actually really mind-opening. And to that I’d say: That’s awesome! I’m glad you got that because aside from my feminist analysis I felt the movie had a good potential as well to really change one’s views on happiness, relationships, and security.
TOO BAD these kinds of deep conversations and relationships are reserved for whites only though! Cause yup, it was a severely white-washed movie. OH BUT WAIT WAIT! I forgot, my folks got a shout-out to our "efficiency" and "timeliness" in airport security. I’m so flattered!! Really progressive, "Up in the Air" folks! Because we went from awkward bystanders in IKEA , to cold and efficient robots in airport security .
Lest you write me off as a never-happy, too-serious feminist, I want you to know that like Snarky Machine I write these critiques because I reeeeeally do want to LIKE these movies. And part of me does! I feel they have the potential to radically depart from the other garbage we’re fed. But I speak out in the hopes that my writing will one day ripple into the world and maybe, just maybe, the next movie will steer clear of these epic fails.
One thing I’ll give Bingham though. I took a look at my big purse the next day and thought "Wow. I really should empty my proverbial life backpack!"
– Anna