Sunday, May 30, 2010

Up in the Air with the thoughts on Up in the Air

Last night I watched the movie Up in the Air and it definitely makes you think. Life, love, freedom, expectations, and delusions all come into play fairly intricately and gives a great basis for conversation. I am not sure it is really possibile to wax philosophically about this movie without spoilers, so if you don't want to know what happens, don't keep reading. You've been warned.

At first glance, you might think that the movie is a standard romantic comedy, where the main character, Ryan, played by George Clooney, is the classic loner who realizes the error of his ways when he meets a girl and lives happily ever after. The writers have something else entirely in store for us, and the movie leaves us forced to draw our own conclusions about what happens, and what is truly the way people are. Portrayed in the movie are characters with three very different viewpoints. Each one offers a flawed insight into humanity. They each have their strong beliefs, and in the end the movie proves that in a sense, they are all wrong- or at least that their particular road isn't perfect.

First lets look at the most naive: Natalie, played by Anna Kendrick. Natalie is the sweet innocent girl who has followed her love to Omaha Nebraska rather than taking her high quality job offer in San Francisco. Her confrontations with Ryan are constantly arising intense emotions in her. She believes in love and family above all else. Ryan's loner lifestyle she simply cannot fathom. Rather than take the traditional route and make her the heroine in the story, she is shattered, as her boyfriend breaks up with her via text message, and she constantly struggles to define the reason she wants the things that she wants. During one exasperating tirade, she shows that she has fallen into the trap of seeing exactly what she wants in her future. She knows what the guy will look and act like. Her struggles show that even though she claims to believe in love and companionship, her clinging to this image has led her to pick a guy she truly cannot love, and of course probably keeps her from finding someone who can truly be the man of her dreams. The intrinsic lesson she brings is that your expectations can be your entire downfall, and keep you from actually getting what you want.

The second woman in the story, Alex (Vera Farmiga), is a strong experienced woman who seems to know exactly what she wants out of life, and the experience to know how to get it. It is she who best sums up Natalie's shortcomings, and offers the most wisdom throughout the entire movie. When you see her, she is fun loving and care free, but also seems to have her eye on a deeper connection and a greater prize. You are given the impression that she is the balance that the other characters are supposed to find by the end of the movie. Unfortunately for this ideal, the movie throws in a monkey wrench. When Ryan finally breaks down and decides that he should put forth the effort and actually make a human attachment with Alex, he stumbles upon the fact that she has a family already. As she explains in the aftermath, Ryan is a distraction from her life to give her a break from reality. She DID want the real connection and the family. In fact, she already had it. You can draw your own conclusions, but it seems that if she is indeed the model, the writers may even be advocating that family is key, but you need to find your other outlets. For everyone this won't be as extreme of having traveling affairs, but perhaps a subtler message of seeking strength from both your family and outside can be seen here.

Finally of course is the center stage Ryan. Ryan has no connection to his family, his home, or any one person in his life. He lives more on a plane than anywhere else in the world, and though he is surrounded by people, he is of course alone on a deeper level. You find out in fact that he is so far into this life that he has created a philosophy on it that he is actually called to speak about on several occasions. His "What's in your backpack" speeches ask people to look at what is in your life and what weighs you down. He starts with "stuff:" clothes, dishes, photos, belongings, etc. These he emphatically states that were they all to burn up our lives would be better, not worse. "How much lighter our life would be," he implies. He then moves on to people. Friends, family, and of course your love. He sums his thoughts up so well, I can do no better than he:

"Make no mistake your relationships are the heaviest components in your life. All those negotiations and arguments and secrets, the compromises. The slower we move the faster we die. Make no mistake, moving is living. Some animals were meant to carry each other to live symbiotically over a lifetime. Star crossed lovers, monogamous swans. We are not swans. We are sharks."

Not the traditional self help, eh? Of course predictably, he sees hope in Alex and realizes that he doesn't want to be alone. At his biggest speaking engagement ever, he seems to realize that he is feeding people something he no longer believes in. Of course, as mentioned earlier, this change in course doesn't give the happy ending we all expect. Rather than a happily ever after, he sees Alex's true life, and is crushed.


You also see a sub story with Ryan and his family, and several points where he seems to realize how little of a part he plays in their life. There are even a few moments where he gets a chance to rectify some of his inaction in the past, but on the whole, you are left feeling he is still outside.

So what is the take-away from all this? The hopeless romantic is left alone, the sage of the film has an affair, and the reformed character sees no happy ending. And this is how the movie ends. Is the end result that there is no hope? That maybe Ryan is right? This certainly could be taken as truth. I, however, see several small things that give me the impression that were we to do a "10 years later" things might be far more clear. These moments are three-fold.

First, is the steps Ryan takes with the people in his life. Both the note that Ryan writes when Natalie leaves the company, and the miles he gives his sister. He gives the impression of having never written a letter of recommendation before, and his is completely heartfelt. For most people, this would not be a big step, but in the confines of the film I think we can see that this is Ryan's first real connection to someone, even as a friend. It is his attempt to be there for her in the only way he knows how. The same is true for his sister. He sees in her something she truly wants, and does something to try and make it happen, rather than standing back and watching from afar. A major step for this man.

Secondly is the moment where Ryan starts flying to a random destination. The lesson here is actually one that I think applies to both Natalie and Ryan, insofar as they need to start living. Often times people get so wrapped up in what they are doing, that they fail to actually live. Doing things that enrich our hearts, minds and souls is more important than nearly everything else. It is those experiences that make us stronger people, and also what we share with others. If we exclude ourselves from these, we have no way to actually connect with others. We are left with "stuff" that we do. Stuff we do is great to get us from point A to point B, but if you're not living at and between those points, there is really no point. Traveling for pleasure, reading, seeing a film or theatre, enjoying nature, or countless other things can fill this void, but I think it is one many people have, and don't even realize that they are failing at actually living even though they may be successful in so many other areas of their lives.

Lastly, and most blatantly is the follow-up interviews with the fired employees. (Ryan fires people for a living). When they are looking ahead, each and every one says that is their connection to others; their family, and those they love that make them want to do more. It is those connections that give them the strength they need to take a defeat and turn it into something powerful and amazing for themselves. Over and over the message is given: You can be alone, but you can't live alone. To truly enjoy the good, and to handle the worst life has to throw at us, our loves are mandatory.

Clearly I don't agree with everything put forth in this film, and I was frustrated by such an ambiguous ending, but at the same time I think that the film provokes a great deal of thought. Their use of traditional plots with a strong twist to avoid being cliche certainly added to the depth and interest of making you pause and think about what you were watching.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Vanishing Capitalism in the name of Capitalism

Today, Arianna Huffington posted one an article that made me especially thoughtful. For the last several years, Americans have felt the pain of the shockwaves created by some sizable problems in the financial sector. What Arianna brings to light goes far beyond Wall Street however.

Amid all the arguments made, this particular quote stuck out to me: "Thirty years ago, top executives at S&P 500 companies made an average of 30 times what their workers did -- now they make 300 times what their workers make." Now, I am all for the American Dream, and the belief that people should be able to rise to whatever heights that they can bring themselves up to, but 300% more than the people that do the work to make you successful? That means if the average worker is bringing in $40,000, their execs are making TWELVE MILLION dollars! The imbalance there is stagering.

Before I go to far, let me say that I totally value the worth of being in charge, and having the responsibilities that executives and business owners have. Being in charge means that you carry the biggest responsibility. You are responsible for the company, its image, and the people who work for you. That's a lot to carry around, and certainly one should be well compensated for all that work. What I can't say- and I say this as someone who was and will again be the boss- is that this stress and responsibility is worth 300 times that of those who work for me.

Another concern that I have with big businesses is that unlike true Capitalists- who I view the vast majority of SMALL business owners to be- most of these execs are not the ones that suffer if their business is. When my business did well, so did my finances. When my business struggled, so did my budget. That's part of the trade off. The company's success rests on your shoulders, so you should reap the rewards. So to should you shoulder a large portion of the burden when things aren't going well. When companies are laying off hundreds of thousands of employees because their budgets got out of control, but then turn around and give their executives multi-million dollar bonuses, there is a significant problem. The workers aren't the ones that make decisions which lead to a company's success or failure, the execs are. While the workers are the foundation upon which a company is built, the overall effect that an individual at the "bottom" has on a major company's bottom line is miniscule, and yet they are the ones that are feeling the pain. They are the ones who are having their benefits cut, losing their jobs, and not getting raises.

More infuriating is the fact that for the average American, a 10% cut in benefits or pay is earth shattering. To an individual making several hundred thousand or worse several million dollars, such a cut isn't felt in nearly the same way. The cost of insurance, health care, food, and living for the execs doesn't scale with their income. Basic needs and a decent quality of life can be met with some semblance of a baseline. The closer your income is to that baseline the more traumatic it can be to lose any of that income.

I don't believe that everyone should make the same amount of money. I do believe that those who take risks and work hard should receive financial benefit for what they do. What I don't believe is that anyone needs to be so far out above the people they work with that there isn't even a comparison. I believe in Capitalism, but many in this country who now call themselves Capitalists aren't actually upholding the values they claim to. When a man or woman has been able to put themselves in a nearly unassailable position, where the above average man with grit and determination can't ever even dream of competing with them, you have simply created a new type of royalty. The system we have today more closely resembles feudalism than the dreamed Capitalism, with only the fringe of small and medium sized business owners struggling to maintain their rightful foothold or true Capitalism in the country and system that this country was originally built on.

Thursday, April 8, 2010

Some nature inspired views on love

This entry was inspired when I was sent this quote:

"Love is a temporary madness. It erupts like an earthquake and then subsides. And when it subsides you have to make a decision. You have to work out whether your roots have become so entwined together that it is inconceivable that you should ever part. Because this is what love is. Love is not breathlessness, it is not excitement, it is not the promulgation of promises of eternal passion. That is just being "in love" which any of us can convince ourselves we are. Love itself is what is left over when being in love has burned away, and this is both an art and a fortunate accident." --St. Augustine

Sort of brilliant, no?

The interesting distinction that he makes when distinguishing between the feelings of being "in love" and actual love are quite interesting. Particularly when so often you will hear people say "I love you, but I am not in love with you." Apparently, said people would be neither. They have neither felt the incredible fireworks of the volatile eruption, nor do they feel that such an event has left them irrevocably linked to another person.

One main thing that I REALLY like about this statement, is that it portrays love as a violent and powerful force of nature. It is something that we have tried for milllenia to control, and have been truly unable to do so. When it comes into your life it is explosive, causing as much damage as possible before you can actually see the great things beneath it. If we go with St. Augustine's analogy, we are almost "in love" so that we can survive together long enough to actually love someone. Without the "breathless excitement and promises of eternal passion" we might very well be unwilling to get to the point with another person where our lives are truly entangled.

The entanglement he mentions is also particularly vivid. I think that image is something that anyone who has ever been in love can visualize for themselves and those they have truly felt for.

Despite all the powerful images he conjures, I think that in the end, the analogy fails to actually capture the entire truth. I would like to think of something without ignoring the man (or woman) involved in the moment, and all the various things that can happen with love. Looking towards nature, I would like to offer the following observation in its place:

Love is the act of two storms crashing together. The mere proximity to one another changes the makeup of each storm and all that surrounds it. Their meeting can be violent or calm. The collision can cause the storms to dissipate completely, rebound off one another in completely different directions, circle around one another for an indefinite period of time, or in the rarest of occasions, the two can merge, becoming a Perfect Storm, one that is greater than either of the two individual parts ever could have been alone.

I like the image of a storm because it can be long or short, and its strength and duration can be completely unrelated to one another. It can be beneficial to the land or destructive, but will always make an impact. Of course, it is constantly changing. Even those loves that last a lifetime, I believe do so not because they are stagnant, but rather that they change together.