With an Oscar for Juno, and a likely nomination for Up in the Air – a slick, Clooney-starring movie that could yet take this year's Best Picture award – the relatively anonymous Jason Reitman is now one of Hollywood's key film-makers. So is his dad Ivan, director of Ghostbusters and Twins, a teeny bit jealous, asks DONALD CLARKE
POKE around vimeo.com, the nifty video-sharing site, for a while and you should track down a clever little snippet entitled Lost in the Air: The Jason Reitman Press Tour Simulator. Cut to the rhythms of The Clash's Janie Jones, the film features fleeting images of the several hundred interviewers Reitman encountered while promoting his slick new film Up in the Air. (This writer zips by in a subliminal, finger-wagging nanosecond.)
When he glances up from his iPhone after taking my photo, Jason Reitman does, indeed, look like he’s done 150 rounds with the world’s most inquisitive hacks. Slightly bleary round the eyes, bearded like a younger Jason Lee, he answers in short bursts interspersed with very deep breaths. Mind you, it is his 32nd birthday and his film has just premiered triumphantly at the London Film Festival.
"Yeah it was a nice screening," he says. "They all seemed to like it. Didn't they?" Indeed they did. Somehow or other, Jason Reitman, son of Ivan Reitman, director of Ghostbusters, has become one of the key quasi-mainstream film-makers of the developing century. Not everybody gets to sit before the vast legion of journalists immortalised in Lost in the Air. Yet he has achieved this without developing any easily identifiable signature.
His first film, Thank you for Smoking, was a busy, wry satire on the politics of big tobacco. His second, Juno, was (as you hardly need to be told) a fresh, sparkily-written study of teenage pregnancy. Up in the Air, starring George Clooney as a corporate axe-man who lives to travel, is an altogether cooler affair than either of those pictures. A dry comedy with sombre undercurrents, the picture was – until some epic about blue aliens came along – many pundits' front-runner for best picture at the Oscars.
“I wouldn’t say there’s any pressure in that,” Reitman says. “It’s a matter of pride that my films are part of that conversation. I hoped I’d make one film that would be in that race. Now, I’ve made two that were talked about that way. That comes as a real surprise.”
Whereas everyone expected writer Diablo Cody and star Ellen Page to get nominations for Juno, it seemed less likely that Reitman – again, where's his directorial signature? – would receive the Academy's nod. But he did, indeed, become "Oscar-nominated" director Jason Reitman.
“Well now, when I am introduced, they have to say that. It’s part of my name. It’s like being knighted. I guess it’s one more thing that helps you get your film green-lit.”
Which brings us to Up in the Air. Reitman, who had made short films and commercials throughout his 20s, first optioned Walter Kim's source novel at the start of the decade. He should be aware that those elusive projects that directors plug away at for year after year very often turn out to be disappointments when finally realised. So it is all the more pleasurable to report that Up in the Airis such a delightful piece of work: slick, ironic, suave, enigmatic.
"I stopped development on this film to make two movies," he says. "It's as simple as that. I stopped to make Thank You for Smoking. Then I stopped to make Juno. But I had to grow up too. If I had made it back when I started writing it first I wouldn't have made such a good movie. Six years ago, I wouldn't really have known what I was talking about."
This is an interesting comment. Up in the Air is, indeed, a more grown-up film than the snarky, cheeky Juno. The picture casts Clooney as a man who lives his life in aeroplanes, business lounges and hotel rooms. Travelling the United States to sack various unfortunate wage slaves, he sets himself the task of accumulating an extraordinary 10 million frequent flyer miles.
By casting Mr Clooney – as crisp of collar as ever – in the central role, Reitman inevitably injects a degree of glamour into this lifestyle. But, as the film races forward, we are also alerted to the emptiness of the peripatetic existence. Are we supposed to envy or pity the hero?
"It's odd. There are very few movies out there that treat travel poetically," he says. "It's open to interpretation what you think of him. I have made three films and in each case half the audience thought one thing and half thought another. Liberals thought Thank you for Smokingwas liberal; conservatives thought it was their film. Pro-lifers thought Junowas on their side; pro-choice people disagreed. Similarly, half the audience thinks Clooney's lifestyle is great; half think it's depressing."
Rarely can lead casting have had such an effect on audience perception. If you hired any other actor – maybe even Pitt or Depp – to play a man who assiduously collects loyalty cards and takes bizarre pride in his ability to get through airport security promptly, then that character would inevitably seem somewhat sad. But everyone warms to Clooney – even axe-man Clooney.
There are bits of the actor’s public personae on display here. The hero, despite looks and money, has yet to find the right woman.
“I’ll admit this movie was tailored for him stitch-by-stitch and not just in how he acts and his sense of humour. It’s a self-examination of his public persona almost. One of the first things George said was that he could see how people were going to draw connections between this character and his own public persona. ‘I am going to stare that straight in the eye,’ he said.”
What about the consistent jokes about his age? It’s often mentioned that the character is closing in on his golden years. “Oh, he loved that. He’s got a great sense of humour about that sort of thing.”
It’s interesting to hear that the part was tailored for Clooney. Surely, way back in 2002, when he’d yet to make a feature, Reitman didn’t seriously think he could get gorgeous George into his film. Did he?
“When I first started writing I did think he would be great, but it would have been arrogant to think I could make a movie with him at just 25 years old. Then, after Juno, I had a bit more chutzpah. I asked him and he said yes. That was a great moment, because he is perfect in every way imaginable.”
I'm not sure Jason Reitman ever lacked chutzpah. He's an amiable guy with an unpretentious approach, but he gives off an air of relaxed, assured confidence. Of course, he did grow up among movie royalty. With films such as Ghostbusters, Kindergarten Copand Twinsunder his belt, Ivan Reitman was, for all the variable quality of his output, a box-office phenomenon.
The older film-maker takes a producer's credit on Up in the Air.
“I was keen to establish myself as director on my own,” Jason Reitman says. “Then once I did I felt more able to work with my dad. He is my hero. I feel nothing but pride towards him. It is wonderful to see his name and mine on the screen together.” Yet there must, occasionally, be a smattering of competition between the two men. That’s how families work.
"No. I don't think so. That would be useless. He is one of the most successful directors of all time. It would be a grave mistake to get competitive with my father. Fortunately I make quite different films from my dad. He makes broader comedies and I do what I do. It would, I guess, be harder if I was trying to make Ghostbustersall the time."
Reitman Jr retained a strangely low profile during Juno's successful romp through the world's cinemas two years ago. Diablo Cody, the film's glamorous screenwriter, who ultimately won an Oscar for her work, somehow managed to vacuum up most of the publicity. I guess we shouldn't be surprised. An occasional stripper, with a keen ear for a neat phrase, Cody offered the press a stonking good story. Jason must, however, have occasionally felt that his thunder was being stolen.
“No. I love Diablo. I’m proud of her and proud of the work she did. I never even expected to get nominated and I did. Diablo is like a sister and I felt only incredible pride in her achievements. I never thought I’d make a movie that had that sort of excitement around it. People understand my contribution to that film, and the more films I make the more they will get it.”
Reitman seems to be answering a question he wasn’t asked. After three successful films – leading to, barring catastrophe, two best director Oscar nominations – we are still not quite sure what sort of film-maker he is. In my brief experience, he is, however, a good director of talentless actors. Who else, armed with just an iPhone, could so effectively have caught me in full, interlocutory flow. It’s a small thing, but it’s telling.
Shooting in airports: not recommended
As you can imagine, in the age of travel paranoia, shooting motion pictures in airports can be a nightmare. Yet, eager to capture the feel and smell of inner America, Jason Reitman made a point of shooting large parts of his film on location.
“We were in five of the cities the characters visit: Detroit, Omaha, St Louis, Miami and Las Vegas,” he says. “That was a heavy shoot and, like the characters, I travelled incessantly.”
So what was the biggest challenge?
“Shooting in airports is absolutely horrible. Everything has to go through security, every single morning. You have to supply your own electricity on these wires trailing through the airport. You can’t bring your own food. You have to eat their stupid ugly food. Crowd control is impossible. Then working within or near the planes is even worse.
“We had a mock-up and a real plane; both present real difficulties. You can’t remove a seat in the real thing. You can’t even touch the outside. If you so much as dimple it, the fucking thing can’t fly. You have to create a vast perimeter around it, which makes it harder to light.”
Phew! It sounds as if he will not be rushing back to shoot Up in the Air 2any time soon.
“It was very tricky indeed. Everyone who makes a road movie never wants to shoot inside a car again. This is worse. I have done my airport and airplane shooting for life. Never again.”
