I saw another movie this weekend that flipped the question from Leap Year (If you had only a minute to save only one thing in your house, what would you save?) on its head. Ryan Bingham, played by the impeccable George Clooney, in Up in the Air would say, Why save anything? Possessions - and people - are only baggage. Make a new start. Harsh.
Somehow, though, this misanthropic mindset doesn't make you hate him. Pity him, maybe, but Ryan is, oddly enough, a likable guy. He looks out for the new girl, Natalie, who's implementing a system that will upset his nomadic lifestyle, with which he is perfectly content; he knows the tricks to sneaking into hotel conventions for a good party; he cares about his sisters and their happiness (or at least the younger one's... the older one is just kind of there to be quietly self-righteous). So even though his job is to travel around the country and fire people, he's a decent guy - with a somewhat twisted view of the world.
"Pictures," he says, justifying their insignificance, "are for people who can't remember." So true, and yet, still sad. I think we do remember what is worth remembering. For example, I have never seen a photograph of my brother on the day he was born, but I don't need one to remember how it felt to see him for the first time - and how I immediately thought, God, newborns are not cute. But, solid as our memories can be, pictures are nice to have around, to flip through in a photo album or click through online. You get to remember the details: the weather, your clothes or your hairstyle, the time of day, maybe. I think Ryan comes to appreciate pictures - and what they can mean to people beyond a snapshot of a memory - a little more at his sister's wedding, and just for psychoanalysis's sake, I'd say that perhaps he took his original point of view because he'd never experienced anything that merited a picture.
Another unusual viewpoint expressed by Ryan is a total lack of interest in marriage or fatherhood. He provides a good foil for Natalie, and again, I think his sister's wedding softens him a bit toward marriage, or at least, long-term relationships. Natalie, being the fresh-faced, naive hopeless romantic that she is, expresses exactly the opposite of Ryan's goal of perpetual bachelorhood: she dreams of the husband, the kids, the dog, and the picket fence - and she expected to have settled down already, at age 23.
Surely she jests.
There are [college-educated] women who want that at this age? I would say half of my girlfriends are working and figuring out career paths, while the other half are in graduate or professional school or getting there. While a few might be working on the MRS degree, no one's working on the MOM. Of course, this is likely also a skewed sample, as everyone knows birds of a feather flock together. If I were a Natalie type, maybe I would have more Natalie-type friends.
I'm certainly not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to be a young mother, and I don't think having a college degree somehow tempers one's maternal desires or should make one want to be a mother less. I'm only saying that I really didn't know women like Natalie existed. (And maybe they still don't in the real world... after all, she's just a Hollywood character, right?) This is what happens when you assume everyone is like you, I guess.
What I liked about Up in the Air was that it was a smart movie about smart people. And it made me think about some deep stuff: what matters in life, what I want or expect out of life, what's in my metaphorical backpack. I think a jet-setting life like Ryan's would be glamorous at first, but for me, it would get real old real fast. Like Natalie, I want the settled life, the career, the family, the two-car garage. The difference between me and her is that I want that at some as-yet-undefined point in the future, and she thought she'd already have it at
Seriously, why is it always the girl following the guy? Is the lure of a ring [that may never materialize] so enticing that it's worth diverting your career path and moving to Nebraska? (To be fair, I've never actually been to Omaha, and I'm sure it's a lovely city... but you can't tell me "Omaha" holds more allure than even the podunkiest town in "California.") Then again, it's hard to compete with the true love argument, even from my feminist and slightly (just a tad, I swear) cynical standpoint. I guess if it all works out, it makes for a romantic story to tell your kids someday. Maybe you could have it made into a chick flick... about how you hated each other at first, but other people made you kiss, and all of a sudden, your bags were packed for the Midwest.
No comments:
Post a Comment