In "Up in the Air," director Jason Reitman examines the life of a man lost in the clouds. This is his third feature−length film, following 2007's Oscar−nominated "Juno," and it is already receiving tremendous critical and commercial acclaim. Reitman had enough time in his travel schedule to talk about directing, his actors and the economy.
Question: How have you changed as a filmmaker since "Thank You for Smoking" (2005)?
Jason Reitman: Well, my first film was a very black−and−white satire about lobbying. This one is much more about the intricacies of human behavior and human relationships, so I think I've become a much more articulate filmmaker. I'm much more interested by the gray and I'm much better at hitting specific points and pushing the audience in a specific way.
Q: As a director, how do you involve yourself in the actor's process?
JR: I have no idea what a process is. I don't believe in process, or at least I don't want to hear about it. I want my actors to be as natural as humanly possible. I try to work with actors who share a quality with the character they're playing so that it always feels like it's coming from a place of truth. I'm not really interested in working with an actor who's playing the opposite of [himself or herself].
Q: Do you consider yourself a screenwriter first and director second or the other way around?
JR: I consider writing, directing and editing to be all parts of the one job of storytelling. It starts with me having an idea and ends with me getting it on screen. All I want is to present an idea to an audience and make them laugh, and to do that I have to do many things, including writing and directing. Writing is lovely because you have complete control, but it's lonely and it's really hard. Directing is more manual labor, I find.
Q: Vera Farmiga was brilliant in the film; what drew you to her?
JR: What I liked about Vera is that she doesn't judge her characters. I was portraying a very specific woman, a woman in her late 30s who is going through sort of a mid−life crisis based on the fact that the feminist movement promised her that she could have any life that she wanted and that she could do everything. Now she is trying to do everything, but we all have to sacrifice, which is the truth, and that's where I think a mid−life crisis comes from. I needed a woman who could be as masculine as she was feminine, completely in control of her sexuality, and not judge what happens from beginning to the end of the film.
Q: There was great chemistry between Vera and George on screen; did that happen naturally?
JR: I had to sprinkle some pixie dust. Honestly, that's all George. I think it's very easy to have chemistry with George Clooney at the end of the day, and he makes that happen. Every time I've heard Vera interviewed that's exactly what she says. I had no doubt they would have chemistry.
Q: You wrote the part of Natalie with Anna Kendrick in mind. Is that how you like to approach the creative writing process?
JR: Yeah, I do. I wrote eight of the characters in this film for the actors specifically. I feel it's a lot easier to write once I know the voice of the character. With Anna, I had seen her in "Rocket Science" (2007), and in that saw a girl so different from everyone of her generation … [she] had such an articulate, pointed way of speaking. I also needed a girl who is like many of the girls I have fallen in love with in my life, who are always kind of the smartest person in the room and are kind of frustrated by their own brilliance. That's exactly who she is.
Q: Do you think the current economic climate will alter people's opinion of your main character, a man whose job it is to fire people?
JR: Yeah, I think a lot of people will come in ready to vilify the guy more than if we made the film eight years ago. But I'm used to making movies about characters [who] are usually vilified, so I'm not as worried about that. Downsizing isn't really what the movie is about at the end of the day. The movie is about a guy trying to figure out who and what he wants in his life. This economy has served as an interesting location for the film and it's become a more prominent location from when I started writing the script seven years ago, but it's never been a movie about firing people.
Q: If you sit through the credits you hear a song from a man who had just lost his job. How did that happen?
JR: After "Juno," I had a lot of high−school students send me music to use in my movies, but I was speaking at the University of St. Louis when a man in his 50s handed me a cassette tape. We found a car with a cassette deck and listened to it, and it wasn't the greatest song ever written, but it was authentic. Considering how many people have lost jobs, I was particularly proud to find a song that really spoke to the idea of what it's like to search for purpose on a daily basis.
Q: You mentioned that your goal is not to make a judgment on the characters but rather to explore them and leave it up to the audience to decide. Has that always been your approach?
JR: I didn't go into my career thinking, "I'm going to make one kind of film or approach my films in a specific way." It just kind of happened. And once you start to make movies, you talk to journalists and they tell you what kind of filmmaker you are. You're like "Oh really? That's what I do? OK." Look, I've made a movie about the head lobbyist for big tobacco, a pregnant teenage girl and a guy who fires people for a living. I seem to be drawn to tricky characters that I like to humanize, and to situations … that I have a lot of questions about, but not answers. I've always enjoyed the movies that don't tell me how to think. I always prefer a film that pushes me to think but [doesn't tell me] how to think.
