Director's Spotlight: Jason Reitman
By Joshua Pasch
September 29, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com

It's the return of the cheeseburger phone. Joy!

My father is a dentist. I have no real interest in dentistry and am long past the point in my life where pursuing dentistry as a career was a viable option. If I had put myself on the teeth-pulling path, I have no doubt that many of my professional accomplishments would be compared to those of my dad. Comparisons are inevitable and plentiful when you enter the family business – and expectations can be high. For Jason Reitman, son of Ivan, those expectations might have proved insurmountable. If I were Jason, those expectations might have stopped me from ever getting out of bed in the morning. When your father is the director behind iconic comedies like Stripes, Animal House, Ghost Busters (I & II), Twins, and, of course, Kindergarten Cop, you’re kind of like Seabiscuit in the proverbial race at exceeding the expectations laid out for you. Basically – you’re a long shot.

And yet, Jason, working in the field of so-bittersweet-we’re-not-100%-sure-they’re-comedies comedies, has managed to jump out of the gate with three works that will one day (or already are) regarded as part of the same modern-classic variety as his father’s work. Today, the young Jason Reitman earns our director’s spotlight.

Thank You for Smoking

This quirky comedy is a newly-minted indie mainstay. Every year there are new entries that try to crack the awards scene and the mainstream and steal the thunder out from under the latest Scorsese and Eastwood flicks. Ask any young producer in Hollywood what type of script he is looking for, and you can bet descent odds that he will respond with “something affordable and in the same vein as Little Miss Sunshine.” In 2005, Ivan Reitman was apparently such a producer, and his son, Jason proved to be the perfect choice for director of the minor indie-hit Thank You for Smoking.

For full disclosure purposes, I’ll admit my bias for this film. For starters, I was very active in high school debate (New Jersey State Champs, 2005 baby!). The film breaks down the most inherent and unavoidable tenant of debate (and for that matter, of politics, of education, of life), which is that there is no “right” and there is no “wrong.” In a pivotal scene where Nick Naylor has to help his son with his essay on why America has “the best government in the world,” Nick illustrates this concept with the following quip: “Because of our endless appeals system.” He then elaborates that it “…is a bullshit report. There is no best government. There is no measure by which we determine which government is the best. The American government may be the most entertaining, but it is not the best.” He later teaches his son, “See, Joey, that's the beauty of argument. When you argue correctly, you're never wrong.”

That is the very principle on which every high schooler who ever participated in Ted Turner, Lincoln-Douglas, or policy debate hinges an argument. Winning or losing doesn’t have anything to do with being right or wrong – it has everything to do with how you frame your position compared to your competitor. Sounds simple now, but when you’re a high school freshman, it takes a little bit for this to sink in. Once it does, it’s the tenet by which you win every argument – whether with your debate opponent or your overbearing parents.

So when Nick is embroiled in a battle royale with a Senator from the great state of Vermont, and the argument moves from the question of health risks due to smoking towards health risks from eating fattening cheese – we know that Nick’s argument feels “wrong,” but part of us believes that he does have a valid point. It’s an incredible feeling to convince someone of something like that. Consider these: big box retailers can be good for local businesses; budget cuts for education can help students succeed; dress code policies can increase freedom of expression. Somewhere, at some point, someone argued those points and won. Not because they’re right, but because they considered the opposition thoroughly, and thought of a way to be convincing. I loved Thank You for Smoking just for talking about this basic idea.

Enough with my tangential musings on debate and its merits. Thank You for Smoking is a film with wit and light drama. Nick faces a moral crossroads when forced with addressing his son honestly with what he actually believes is “right” regarding smoking and its health risks. He is forced to reconcile his professional philosophy and his paternal instincts and it isn’t as easy as some of the used car salesman tactics he’s used in the past.

Not everything in Reitman’s debut film works. The pacing is a little funky – specifically a middle chunk where Nick goes to pay off the Marlboro Man (yes the actual Marlboro Man). But the ending has a nice payoff and the film, while raising serious points, walks a delicate line of never taking itself too seriously. Ivan’s films were hardly ever serious, but he rarely aimed at the heart and the funny bone with such balance. Jason clearly had different designs, and he mostly succeeds in his first attempt.

With his critical accolades, Reitman was well on his way to earning more work, and Thank You for Smoking also earned Fox three times their $8 million dollar budget in domestic box office alone. Every indie aims for those types of numbers, but Reitman was getting ready to really outdo himself with his encore.

Juno

Perhaps replacing Little Miss Sunshine as the ultimate of the quirky indie comedy Oscar hopefuls, Juno stormed onto the 2007 scene with its fast jiving pregnant teen with a name like the city in Alaska but don’t tell her that. It featured such quirky elements as a sister named Ladybug, Michael Cera, an animated sketch opening credit sequence, and parents that don’t yell when they discover their teenage daughter is pregnant. Would you expect anything less from a screenplay written by a woman named Diablo? Juno was a film that many people loved and a few people hated. Jokes about its preggers teenage lead immediately made pop culture waves. People dress like Michael Cera’s Paulie Bleeker for Halloween. Juno cemented Cera’s spot atop the sexy-nerd hierarchy. And it is hard to watch Ellen Page in Inception without picturing her with a baby bulge.

The movie, to its supreme credit, manages to feel realistic and mature even with all of its eccentricity. Juno grapples with a visit to an abortion clinic. She befriends her child’s would-be adoptive parents, and learns that love and marriage and child rearing and everything in between is not nearly as scripted as it seems. And maybe that is Juno’s greatest strength – that she (and the movie) is open to taking us down a path that other teenagers (and movies) wouldn’t.

Juno is lucky to have such a strong group of supporters to help her cope. Spider-Man scene-stealer and Jason Reitman regular JK Simmons plays her curmudgeonly but supporting father, Allison Janney is the surprisingly protective stepmother, and Olivia Thirlby (relegated to what I like to call the “Gretchen Weiner” role of best female friend) deserves roles as well written as this one.
Juno was the dark horse of the awards season that year, eventually losing out in the Best Picture race to the far more grave No Country For Old Men. It did win for Best Original Screenplay, a category that seems to have been made for those films that are considered too “out there” to win best picture. Regardless, the film had plenty of awards season love and it parlayed those positive vibes into a blockbuster $143 million domestically – more than twice what the similarly toned Little Miss Sunshine managed a couple of years earlier.

Up in the Air

I’ve already mentioned my affinity for high school debate. Well Anna Kendrick, the female lead (though she was billed as supporting) in Reitman’s third film had a breakout role – and it wasn’t that of George Clooney’s headstrong foil. Rather, Anna starred in a little seen and super quirky indie (seeing a pattern here?) called Rocket Science. In this movie she played a…wait for it…high school debater from New Jersey! How.Could.I.Not.Love? I’ve also had the good fortune to meet Anna once and profess my love for that film, her character, and I may or may not have confessed my love for her as well.

Obviously, expectations were high for Reitman’s third feature. He had shown a propensity for blending smart comedy with dramatic substance in his first two features, and for his third film he was tackling the timely subject matter of economic recession. He also assembled another strong cast that included Clooney, Kendrick, and the always strong but oft underused Vera Farmiga.
In terms of critical reception, Up in the Air was nothing short of the standards Reitman had set for himself with his previous outings. It was certainly his most mature film to date and he managed to take this dour subject matter and engage viewers to the tune of $75 million domestically and Oscar nominations for best picture, lead actor, supporting actress (twice!), and adapted screenplay.

For me, my love for Anna may have caused my expectations to grow too fiercely. I walked in expecting greatness and came out having experienced only goodness. Up in the Air is at times very real and very sad. It shows parents who can’t support their families. It shows a woman in Farmiga’s character who chooses not to be with hers. It shows a man in Clooney who is determined now to be weighed down by family at all. And it shows Anna, who has these two adults as role models as she faces questions about what it means to be a working adult for the first time. I fondly and clearly can remember my first “real” job as a college graduate. I remember it vividly and I can still feel the reverberations of confusing emotions that come with learning what life is like without the structure of youth, education, and family. (Full disclosure: I graduated in May 2010). Up in the Air asks a lot of its viewers and maybe I wasn’t totally up for it. Either way, it still marks another solid effort for Reitman, who amazingly, doesn’t seem like he’s hit his ceiling yet – which is a good thing for us.

Young Adult

Though the title might mislead you, this reteaming of Reitman and Juno screenwriter Diablo Cody is not a sequel/spin-off of their teen pregnancy flick. Rather, Young Adult will follow Charlize Theron as a young adult fiction writer who returns to her childhood town to chase down an old beau. Unfortunately, said ex is married and has a newborn child, which apparently isn’t enough to deter Theron’s interest.

Maybe the largest criticism lobbed at Reitman is his affinity for fast-jiving protagonists that can be overbearing at times. Nick in Thank You For Smoking, Juno in Juno, and all three central characters in Up In The Air talk a little too fast and are a tad too quick witted to feel natural. Yet every piece delivered by Reitman so far has such heart that it’s hard to dislike, even if certain aspects of them are too scripted for their own good. His characters feel human and his settings are always integral to the story – none more so than in Up In The Air. Likewise, Young Adult will also be set in mid-America (small town Minnesota), something that may mean little for many films, but don’t be surprised to see the setting playing a primary role in the tone of Young Adult.

Few modern directors have launched themselves so suddenly into movie-going relevance – especially ones who only make “indie” films. Consider that of his first three feature films, all three were nominated for Best Picture – comedy or musical – at the Golden Globes, and his last two were nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. Reitman might be the son of a well known auteur, but he’s made a name all his own. Even if his style isn’t your particular brand – and goodness knows there has been some Juno backlash, there is usually at least some level of admiration for what he’s accomplished in such a short period.