The State of the Race: To Serve Man
Soldiers. A serious man. A great leader. A man up in the air. 2009 is, once again, the Year of the Man. Precious and An Education are two that aren’t. Ordinary women rarely take up much screen time. Nonetheless, Oscars 2009 is defined most assuredly by singular men on a quest.
And I have known the arms already, known them all–
Arms that are braceleted and white and bare
(But in the lamplight, downed with light brown hair!)
Is it perfume from a dress
That makes me so digress?
Arms that lie along a table, or wrap about a shawl.
And should I then presume?
And how should I begin? – T.S. Eliot
Deserved Best Picture frontrunner, Up in the Air is all things a great film should be, with the performance of George Clooney’s career at the heart of it, Jason Reitman’s comedic timing and willingness to go deeper when the plot calls for it. Anna Kendrick, who very nearly steals the show and a script that rivals Aaron Sorkin for quick wit and profound insight speeding by at a mile a minute. Even if the film goes where you think it’s going to go, and even if it isn’t exactly the most original story you’ve ever heard in your life – it works. My god, it works.
Nothing can really prepare you for the way the movie comes to such an alarming yet elegant close. If it doesn’t hit where you live, as it should most of us, it will move you nonetheless. It is personal. It is universal.
Up in the Air, as David Ansen says, hits that sweet spot between the hardness of our current reality in America and the elusive cushion of our dreams. Funnily enough, it reminded me of the Oscar race itself, with so many clambering to be first to see movies, so many who brag about swag, screeners and access — isn’t it just like the idea of adopted loyalty to a brand, falling for the hype that makes you feel as though you really do belong to something bigger and more important than the ordinary human experience.
Those who go through a world like that, of faked alliances, may someday come out the other side and see that, no, it won’t get you through a lonely night. It will get you 500,000 frequent flyer miles even when, especially when, you have nowhere to go. If all you do is fly around on business what kind of a life can you be making down on the ground with the rest of us?
This is not a unique theme in Hollywood films. One only need go back to The Accidental Tourist to remember a film about the value of people over the value of controlled isolation traveling anonymously from place to place affords.
Or, as Grace Slick once sang:
When the truth is found to be lies
and all the joy within you dies
don’t you want somebody to love
don’t you need somebody to love
wouldn’t you love somebody to love
you better find somebody to love
Isn’t that so much about what growing up is all about? Like Up in the Air, the Coen brothers’ A Serious Man examines the illusions of a life constructed for a certain outcome. That outcome is messed with because at its base was a misconception. In this case, believe in morality or in being a good person no matter what kinds of horrors life throws out you – not real horrors, of course, like starvation, war and the slaughter of millions but isolated, American middle class horror. Alienation, futility, loneliness, betrayal, failure.
A Serious Man is a twisted version of Reitman’s Up in the Air because it is anything but universal. And unlike Up in the Air, hope is not offered up in any way, and goodness is not a transformation that is going to make things all right in the end.
What Up in the Air gives us weary Americans, though, is a light at the end of the tunnel, a reason to conclude that our miserable lives have not been a total waste because what we’ve been focusing on has been worth it – we might not be in first class, nor do we have executive status — think of how many people are going to watch the scene where they lay down their club cards and their credit cards and think about their now-ruined credit — but we do have love. Love is free and the quest for it is a worthy pursuit. It’s what we were born to do and maybe nothing else matters.
If you go to the movies to get something back, you will pay your small fortune to see Up in the Air but you will come back with the comfort of hope, however momentary. This is what we need. Right now.
On a more global scale, Clint Eastwood’s Invictus is another movie that provides a salve for the torments of modern life. The emotional impact of the film will come not from the reflections of our own lives, as with A Serious Man and Up in the Air, but with a more far-reaching one; anyone who is having trouble living in a country that is so suddenly extremist and racist all over again will be moved by Nelson Mandela’s clever unification of white and black in South Africa, and Eastwood’s ability to tell the story so beautifully and confidently; yes, it’s odd that it happens to be Clint Eastwood of all people telling the story. I dare say that only a director with the kind of worldly wisdom of someone nearly 80 years old could tell this story without forcing the emotion out of us.
Lately, in the past decade, our films have been designed to appeal to the youths with the deep pockets. Therefore, emotions have to be gotten easily, sentiment must be out there for all to see, otherwise how will kids get the subtle impact? Invictus is, to me, one of Eastwood’s finest films. Admittedly, I’m someone who loves his work anyway, but this one was exceptional – it reminded me of the long, slow movies of the 1970s that packed a punch nonetheless, but didn’t need to be short and to the point. The Sydney Lumet, Frances Ford Coppola school of expansive storytelling. Some of us crave those kinds of films again, so rare they are.
All of the men in the films this year turn in memorable, career-best performances – Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela – nails the accent and finds the humor and charm in the character, Michael Stuhlbarg as poor old Larry Gopnik – isolated, panicked, desperate, and of course, George Clooney who has never been better than he is in Up in the Air – never been more vulnerable, never been more charming, never been more terrified.
I find I am still haunted by the possession of Jeremy Renner in The Hurt Locker, whose need to go back into the fray — win the war — save lives — competes with his struggle to be a family man, and to turn his back on another man’s war and live his own life. And Ben Foster in The Messenger – dealing with the ultimate cost of war makes living a normal life impossible.
Where it once seemed like a trend that so many Oscar movies were driven by a man’s quest to eke out his identity or save the world or find somebody to love was a trend, now it feels like it’s going to be around for a while. It is not only a man’s world, it feels like, but we seem conditioned to follow men’s paths towards salvation.
Other posts you might like
38 Comments
One Trackback
-
[...] Awards Daily, Sasha Stone notes that many of this year’s top films center on an isolated man with a quest, from Jeremy Renner’s [...]
Julian Walker says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:39am
First baby!! Oh yeah!!!!!
daveylow says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:42am
A well-considered look at three films that are being considered for awards.
I think Up in the Air deserves all its praise. It’s a rare American comedy/drama aimed at adults.
I’m less enthusiastic about A Serious Man, which I just don’t get. I had a discussion about this film with one of my nieces who loved it. I absolutely hated this film. We disagreed on everything when we discussed certain scenes.
I haven’t seen Invictus yet so I can’t comment.
Fivus Viener says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:45am
A Serious Man just opened in Jacksonville, FL. Yeah baby. Going this weekend!
Hunter says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:48am
T.S. Eliot and Grace Slick? Eat her dust, David Poland!
Fivus Viener says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 11:57am
“Up in the Air, though, ends on an ambiguous note, not a happy one necessarily. It is open to interpretation – and maybe how you see the ending ultimately defines you are a person.”
Thanks for the heads up?
Peter says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:19pm
It’s interesting to me that no one feels ambivalent about Serious Man. Either they hate it or love it. What does this mean?
qwiggles says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:26pm
UITA’s ending is ambiguous, yes, but count me in the camp who consider it mostly positive. If A Serious Man leaves us with an approaching storm, UITA leaves us a few days later, after its protagonist has begun to weather it. There’s a graceful, Juno-esque offscreen written gesture from one character to another near the end of the film that suggests to me that even if all has been uprooted for these two characters, their integrity (perhaps new to both of them) is something they might hold fast to, in moving forward. A nice thought, and the kind of sentiment the Academy might be open to. Or maybe not — Sideways’ similar final gesture didn’t move them so much.
As an aside, I’m becoming more and more convinced that The Lovely Bones will gain serious traction in the coming weeks as the most blatantly metaphysical contender — the one you go to if you’re in line with A Serious Man and UITA’s man-in-turmoil stuff but find their stories too small, not cosmic enough.
Antoinette says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:28pm
Well this is why I was so impressed with Kathryn Bigelow. Because it she were to win Best Director this year it would be for a manly man’s movie. Not some frou-frou movie with big dresses and bigger hats. I like that.
qwiggles says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:30pm
Peter, I’m a bit ambivalent about A Serious Man. I’d give it an A-: it’s masterful at what it’s doing and I wouldn’t change a frame, but I’m not convinced it takes a lot of wisdom to say that life piles up meaningless traumas on some people.
qwiggles says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:35pm
Antoinette — I’d like to see her win too because it’s an expert example of action directing: exquisitely timed, well-paced, clean, suspenseful. But what’s wrong with a frou-frou winner? I think the case could be made that Jane Campion does just as masterful a job with her costume drama, working with completely different material. Granted, it’s not the kind of work that usually gets noticed, but her attention to detail exceeds James Cameron’s in Titanic, I’d say, because Bright Star’s environments are places you can picture yourself roaming through.
Dan says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 12:49pm
Peter, (and qwiggles) A Serious Man for me was about capturing a life in motion at a time that was bursting with rather frightening potential for change – Kent State was 3 years in the future, but already the stirrings of protest had become front page news (10,000 march against the war in San Francisco), the summer was rife with race riots (Buffalo, Newark, Minneapolis, Detroit, Washington DC), and the setting of the stage in the Middle East, the Six Day War, made the summer a very hot one. China not only declared it would help North Vietnam, it shot down an American plane violating its airspace. The tension of this time is referenced pretty directly when “the fucking flag” at the end of film is about to be torn from the flagpole.
I think the idea is, if you get the context within which the Jewish community depicted can still consider itself isolated, you will get more from the movie than if you just think of it as the story of a somewhat whiney man having a mid-life crisis. It is also a coming of age story within this context, a reminder of how devastating the persecution of homosexuality could be, far more explicit and moving, in my opinion, than what was shown in Brokeback Mountain, and a reminder of what divorce proceedings used to look like – all these are important things, as far as I am concerned.
But more than that, the film does indeed put all of this in a larger philosophical perspective – the idea of a serious man being, in the end, a man who takes very trivial things way too seriously, and thinks far too little on the essentials of life – ethics, health, family.
A Serious Man, I have to admit, just seems a more substantial and interesting film than this Up in the Air thing – which I will see, of course. There’s more going on than meets the eye. Of course, you could just watch A Serious Man without considering what else you know, but that’s not how folktales, like the one at the start of the movie, work. The whole film is like a folktale – and resonates deeply via the same methods.
Fivus Viener says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:10pm
If they had taken the Julie out of Julie and Julia, it would have been a film about a powerful woman.
rjp says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:29pm
Thanks for spoiling the end of UP IN THE AIR..
Ryan Adams says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:40pm
“If they had taken the Julie out of Julie and Julia, it would have been a film about a powerful woman.”
And the way they chose to go was to contrast two women from different eras who find empowerment appropriate to their time and temperament. It’s a very nicely balanced structure.
I’m weary of people latching onto the easy thing of saying it’s “half a good movie.” If it had been a standard biopic of Julia Child alone, Meryl’s performance would have no contrast or relevance. Big deal, she wrote a cookbook. How does that affect me? It doesn’t. So I enjoy seeing how it changed someone else’s life.
Jackal says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 1:51pm
“anyone who is having trouble living in a country that is so suddenly extremist and racist all over again…”
Can you substantiate your claim please.
Ryan Adams says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:06pm
watch a hour of FOX news, Jackal.
(unless you watch it regularly already. In which case you might not notice that the extremism of the past 8 years has deepened past your chin to immerse you over your nose.)
Candice Frederick says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:10pm
it would be cliche to give MOrgan Freeman one for playing yet another real-life politician which the Acaademy loves, but i’m sure MOrgan deserves it and he’s a gereat actor.
btu i wouldn’t mind seeing Colin Firth get nominated either.
Fivus Viener says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:22pm
“Thanks for spoiling the end of UP IN THE AIR..”
My thoughts exactly. Think before you publish.
daveylow says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:34pm
Antoinette wrote: Well this is why I was so impressed with Kathryn Bigelow. Because it she were to win Best Director this year it would be for a manly man’s movie. Not some frou-frou movie with big dresses and bigger hats. I like that.
************
I found this comment somewhat amusing. Because I found Jane Campion’s direction of Bright Star much more inspiring than Bigelow’s. I had no problem admiring Campion’s direction of a period historical romance.
Brooke says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 2:48pm
“Up In The Air”‘s ending is the only possible one to avoid being a complete waste of time. I am glad Reitman knew when to stop with the schmaltz, which he didn’t with Juno….but that was Diablo Cody’s fault mostly. I am not a huge fan of the film, but I enjoyed it for the most part. The first 20 minutes are awesome.
Jackal says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 3:03pm
Can anyone on this website raise a debate regarding some of Sasha’s comments without Ryan Adams spewing his “faux” news bile every other time. Dear lord man, calm yourself down.
I just had a problem with this statement: “anyone who is having trouble living in a country that is so suddenly extremist and racist all over again.”
I was wondering whether that comment was directed towards our nation, or South Africa? There is no need to get hostile Adams.
Robert says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 3:06pm
A Serious Man was just brilliant and I’d be thrilled for it to get an Oscar nomination. Up in the Air I originally thought would be another “amoral man learns life lesson” film but the more I hear about it the more interested I’m getting. Invictus looks okay but I don’t know where they find the conflict to sustain it for 2 hours.
Other than that I’m feeling dreadful about this years potential Oscar shortlist. Nine looks like Chicago Redux. Precious looks like its relentlessly depressing and proud of it. The Lovely Bones looks like and extended Law & Order but with some metaphysical stuff. And I’ll just leave Avatar be right now cause I’m already too damn grumpy.
FromChelseaManhattan says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 4:24pm
EW just gave a rave reeview to Up in the Air.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20323777,00.html
Ivan says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 4:32pm
Your choices are boring… better look at a basterd, an alien, a musician with heart, an astronaut, a messenger, a prophet, a father, a single and a young arquitect.
Eric says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 4:39pm
I just saw Invictus. And while I am a fan of most of Eastwood’s post-Blood Work directorial work (and of the “Lumet/Coppola school of expansive storytelling” Sasha mentions), I thought Invictus was completely mediocre and lacked any subtlety whatsoever. Two of the songs in the movie seemed so out of place and cheesy and message-driven, especially from someone like Eastwood, who is so invested in his films’ music. It was beautifully shot and nicely acted, but it lacked heart. I sure hope Eastwood gets back on track with Hereafter.
ar says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 4:41pm
In many ways, A Serious Man is a movie for Coen fans. You’ve got so many of their signatures (particularly the bleak outlook), but with more of a personal touch than we’ve ever seen.
I’m in the love it camp. And instantly. Maybe its because I’m a cynic. Maybe its because my family is Jewish. But there were just so many small details that I enjoyed…
That said, I’m looking forward to Up in the Air. I enjoy an emotionally crippled protagonist.
ar says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 4:43pm
@ #22: Precious is just that: relentlessly depressing and proud of it. A commenter on jezebel dubbed in “horror porn” and I don’t think there is a better way to describe it. While the acting is very good, the script is an uneven mess without any trace of subtlety. Its as if they didn’t trust the audience to realize “things this terrible really happen” so they continue to remind you in EVERY SINGLE WAY to the point where things that are supposed to horrify you inspire laughter.
Or thats how I responded. As did a lot of others in the theater.
bambi says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 4:50pm
Invictus is a bust. For a win. Maybe not for a nom but the Clint is a bust for BD so it`s a bust for BP victory.
Messenger and The Hurt Locker will crossover acting men. Renner will get BA and Harleson will get BSA. Foster and Mackie won`t get in because the buzz is clearly with other too (even though they were fantastic). HL will get BP and BD noms too.
LB`s only lock right now is Tucci in BSA and he`s a strong candidate for a win (likable due actor with two critically acclaimed performances in the same year). Other pretty strong option is Ronan in BA. Then comes so-so possibility of LB getting a Top 10 spot. Shocker if Jackson gets BD since this isn`t a movie in which director is the star like in LOTR (at least that`s what I`m getting from mixed-positive reviews which prevail over negatives and 100% raves alike).
Sherlock Holmes will surprise everyone. Last chance to start believing,folks.
SaBu will get a nomination for her juggernaut Blind Side and the movie itself might show up in Top 10 (because The Reader thought us fresh rating doesn`t matter and BS is at least a boxoffice smash which The Reader wasn`t).
Avatar will F*** everyone`s eyeballs.
Best movie since Star Trek and New Moon and before Avatar and Holmes,Inglorious Bastereds, will get a Harvey push over Nine and land in BSA (Waltz, lock), BP and BD (shocker? nah, they love Holocaust movies, remember?)
I think my predix are realistic. What do you think?
daveylow says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:12pm
I don’t think Bullock will be nominated.
bambi says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 6:15pm
Ryan Adams says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 7:00pm
“I was wondering whether that comment was directed towards our nation, or South Africa? “
bullshit
“I just had a problem with this statement”
if you have a problem with that statement and you challenge someone to “substantiate their claim” then it’s all too obvious where you’re coming from. Especially, when I can see who you are “Sam” and we know your attitude and stance from past topics.
you’re the same guy who two weeks ago wrote that gay people have nothing to be proud of, “unless spreading disease and instability counts”
Bill W. says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 9:31pm
Here we go again … lol
unlikelyhood says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 10:00pm
Well said Sasha. Now I’m *all* excited to see these pictures. When you included the two poems (I’m counting the second one as a poem) I naturally expected you to get to the poem “Invictus” – was that in an earlier draft of this column? Or just a coincidence? If Reitman wants to compete with Eastwood here he’ll have to start singing “Up in the Air, Junior Birdman, up in the air, upside down.” Thank you, thank you.
Glenn says:
Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 10:25pm
Year of the Man? YEAR OF THE MAN?!? Jesus christ, women directors everywhere, a movie like “Precious” out in front, “Nine” getting all the attention it’s getting because of its female cast and yet it’s still “Year of the Man”?
When is it ever NOT the “year of the man”?
Besides, nevermind that “A Serious Man” turns every single female character into a vile, disgusting beast, or that the women in the lives of the men in “Invictus” barely rate a mention (they have to make a whole different movie about Mandella’s wife) or that “Up in the Air” actually also stars two very brilliant women.
No, No, it’s still all about the men. Bloody hell. That whole “Year of the woman” thing sure did disappear fast. It surprises me that Sasha wrote this. Not because she, as a woman, should be championing the women more, but merely because it baffles me that she has so easily forgotten so much of what cinema has delivered so far this year for the sake of an article about Eastwood, Clooney and the Coens. Because we haven’t read about them enough over the last decade. :/
Adam Smith says:
Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 8:55am
@Glenn: You seriously think the Coens portray, say, Larry’s sister or the next-door neighbor as “vile, disgusting beast(s)”? And if any of the female characters are given a bad rap, have you ever considered that some of that is based on Larry’s perception of things? To Larry, the world is full of assholes (Sy Abelman), crooks (Clive and his father), fools (Rabbis Ginzler and Nachtner), harpies trying to bleed him dry (his wife and daughter), and ogres blocking his path to enlightenment (Arthur, Rabbi Marshak, and the Rabbi’s secretary). When his wife really is that unreasonable with him, is it any surprise he would view women as the enemy? No. Is that a healthy reaction? Of course not, and no one is claiming it is. A Serious Man is, in a lot of ways, Larry’s personal horror film, and in that story, basically everyone is against him–his family, his students, even his God.
Basically, my problem is when people mistakenly view a misogynistic point of view of a character as a misogynistic point of view of a film or, even worse, of the filmmakers. I think it’s safe to say that Larry doesn’t have the best view of women–they might even scare him a little bit. But I also think it’s fair to say that the Coens don’t hold a similar view. It’s the same reaction that Synecdoche, New York got–cries of “misogyny” against the film and Charlie Kaufman, when it is Caden Cotard that is misogynistic.
Jackal says:
Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 11:26am
Wow Adams, you are a piece of work. Applying my opinion to someone else entirely. You people need to calm down the rhetoric and substantiate your claims.
I don’t understand how an intelligent person would make a statement saying our country is so extremist and racist now, ala Aparteid South Africa. Listen, the U.S. does have some racist people within its population. But that probably will never change. And if you think the political realm is so extremist; haven’t you been paying attention the last 9 years? The Left, in this country, started this atmosphere during the election year of 2000. So to act all surprised is childish.
And don’t apply that homosexual remark to me. I never said that. I like how you stereotype every person who disagrees with your opinion. Swearing and calling names never works genius.
Ryan Adams says:
Thursday, December 3, 2009 at 11:34am
Jackal = Sam = Hades = Uwe Soul = Herbal Kent
You really tipped your hand and exposed your modus operandi with that last nick back in October, Sam. All these aliases post from the same computer and spew the same style of drivel. Unless you’re the leader of a cult of assholes all sharing the same laptop then you’re busted, buddy.
We don’t have time for these games. You’re not going to get another warning before you’re banned.
Lucas says:
Sunday, December 13, 2009 at 1:16am
Invictus was disappointing and underwhelming. Morgan Freeman’s performance was the only thing I liked about the movie. I don’t think it deserves a BP nom.