Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Up in the Air

Rate this topic


RohinGupta
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi All,

Here is my preliminary take on the movie..

- Malevolent Universe premise

- Perceptualizing of virtue Productivity

- Selfish person as the lone wolf

- Prgmatic approach to communication. Quick switching of contexts

- Bringing air travel(or travel in general) essentials to life

- Irreconcilable dichotomy between personal and professional values

......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi All,

Here is my preliminary take on the movie..

- Malevolent Universe premise

- Perceptualizing of virtue Productivity

- Selfish person as the lone wolf

- Prgmatic approach to communication. Quick switching of contexts

- Bringing air travel(or travel in general) essentials to life

- Irreconcilable dichotomy between personal and professional values

......

Thats not a 'take' thats just a list you made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw the movie but I can't make any sense of that list you wrote. What in the movie leads to each evaluation?

Wrote only trailers because I didn't want to follow up too deeply.

Anyway, here is further clarification...

- Malevolent Universe premise

He ends up vividly unhappy, despite being a brilliant professional and pursuing his work immaculately throughout.

- Perceptualizing of virtue Productivity

His actions and thoughts on saving time in airport(From the structure of luggage to evaluation of queues and holding priority cards)

- Selfish person as the lone wolf

He projects men as Sharks, who live by thriving on other men.

- Pragmatic approach to communication. Quick switching of contexts

While explaining to bridegroom against cold feet, he reverses his value system completely.

- Bringing air travel(or travel in general) essentials to life

The brilliant top views of cities, skies and countryside. His suitcase and card swipes and airplane hostesses. The airport lounges and what comes along

- Irreconcilable dichotomy between personal and professional values

Projection that its futile for a thorough professional like Ryan to engage in long-term relationships.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree he is vividly unhappy or anything so grandiose as a Malevolent Universe is being projected. But he is not so immune to the need for human relationships as he thought he was.

I don't agree his lectures on airport time management count as 'perceptualizing', because as lectures employing words they are conceptual. He was clear and persuasive.

I disagree that the lead was a stand-in for all men in his aloofness, he was a stand-in for the idea of aloofness.

The wedding provokes him to acknowledge values he already has, and to stop being a hypocrite.

It is a good presentation and sometimes critique of airport and hotel 'culture'.

It is not professionalism that interferes with his personal life, it is not the constant travel either. He does not engage in long term relationships because he avoids them.

Your analysis concentrates on the lead character only, neglecting the two women in the movie and their roles. Care to comment? The woman he had a relationship with had entire family on the side, while traveling frequently enough to have much the same experiences and perspective. She is the refutation of the idea that his travelling is the cause of his lifestyle, he chooses to live as he does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree he is vividly unhappy or anything so grandiose as a Malevolent Universe is being projected. But he is not so immune to the need for human relationships as he thought he was.

From the flow of movie its clear, that he wont regain the poise of past and bliss it brings. Now he craves for meaningful relationship, and has no way of

gaining one. The slide to misery has begun.

I don't agree his lectures on airport time management count as 'perceptualizing', because as lectures employing words they are conceptual. He was clear and persuasive.

He not only lectures persuasively, but acts consistently on what he says. Whether airport and hotel optimizations to backpack principle for avoiding material

or human liabilities.

I disagree that the lead was a stand-in for all men in his aloofness, he was a stand-in for the idea of aloofness.

I see no difference between men who are stand-in for aloofness and the idea of aloofness. Former are the real world referrents of the concept. Albeit,

aloofness here refers to Gail Wynand kind of Shark, rather than Howard Roark the true individualist.

The wedding provokes him to acknowledge values he already has, and to stop being a hypocrite.

With wedding BEGINS the hypocrisy for he reverses his stand, and therefore eventual fall. He mis-integrates the logical flow of lower level concepts into the

assertion that ANY relationship is better than no relationship.

(Clearly he was happy alone).

(Flow from productivity achieved through rational choices to meaningful relationships achieved through rational choices).

It is a good presentation and sometimes critique of airport and hotel 'culture'.

I see no evidence of the critique.

It is not professionalism that interferes with his personal life, it is not the constant travel either. He does not engage in long term relationships because he avoids them.

Professionalism comes from Integrity. And Integrity demands that you dont act unless you have understood the value of goals action aspires for. Since he has

not understood the value of human relationships(in the beginning), therefore he avoids them.

He has understood the value of his work(We take along fragile people until they can swim).

On second thoughts, let me correct the -ve connotation to a positive one

- Irreconcilable dichotomy between personal and professional values

TO

- Indefinite dichotomy between professional and personal values is not possible.(As in Hank Rearden)

Your analysis concentrates on the lead character only, neglecting the two women in the movie and their roles. Care to comment? The woman he had a relationship with had entire family on the side, while traveling frequently enough to have much the same experiences and perspective. She is the refutation of the idea that his travelling is the cause of his lifestyle, he chooses to live as he does.

On ladies I will only say, it boils down to integrity.

Alex compromises on her real life husband(If we analyze her cynical description of partner over drink with Natalie in retrospect). But my interpretation is

that she is not able to live through the compromise(nobody can), and seeks her idealism in the affair.

On the other end, Natalie's actions(long range) are clearly determined by her independently arrived at value judgments. If its boy above job, she chases him

down to Omaha. Once that becomes irrelevant, she swiches jobs as carreer is now her priority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPOILER ALERT!

It really would be best practice to use the spoiler tags on any plot information that may RUIN THE ENDING OF THE FILM. I haven't seen this movie yet, but I feel like I already know how it ends.

Tag all spoilers with the spoiler tag.

Sorry Andrew for spoiling the plot. New to movie critique, so the aspect didn't cross my mind.

But having seen the movie twice, I can still safely recommend it.

What you lost in plot twists, can be gained by having renewed perspective....!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...