Unlike some of the other Oscar contenders, the movie Up in the Air does not take you to another planet. But it does take you on a psychological journey - one distinguished by the absence of any particular destination. The movie depicts the life of a corporate downsizing consultant (Ryan Bingham, played by George Clooney) whose job is to travel around the country and do something that cowardly bosses don't have the stomach to do -- inform people they are being fired.
From a psychological perspective, the most interesting aspect of this movie is its take on the special forms of alienation that mobility and technology has brought to modern life. Clooney's character has an unusual and asocial goal - to clock 10 million air miles, and he has a side occupation - giving "motivational" talks in which he argues that homes, families, and lovers are excess baggage, without which one would travel much more lightly. He is in danger of being grounded, however, when his company hires Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick), who has developed computer software that would allow his company to fire people over a video chat line, without having to fly out a consultant for the face-to-face interview. While Natalie is traveling around with Bingham to learn his tricks for rapidly closing a termination interview, her fiancé exploits another form of modern technology to dump her (sending a text message: "I think it's time we C other people").
The movie (directed by Jason Reitman, of Juno fame) delivers a satisfying dose of clever and humorous dialogue, but the underlying psychological issue is a serious one: Relationships with families, lovers, and friends, are costly. Modern technology -- in the form of planes that allow us to move far away, and communication devices such as cell phones and computers that allow us to maintain some semblance of contact -- can free us from those costs. But at what price?
Up in the Air explores a different side of a central evolutionary theme - Getting Along. And it highlights a key feature of all life-decisions - there are always trade-offs involved. That was true of our ancestors' decisions, and it's still true of ours, except that technology has shifted the trade-offs in unexpected and sometimes surprising ways.
Research on technology-intimacy trade-offs
Peter Crabb is a social psychologist at Penn State's Hazleton campus who studies the negative effects of technology on social relationships. He explores how cell phones, automatic tellers, and answering machines, for example, seem like they are going to improve our lives, but often lead to unintended downgrades, by replacing real human contacts with artificial ones. Other social psychologists were more optimistic, and had expected to find that technological innovations like the internet, Facebook, and cell-phone text messaging (: lol), would yield the usual benefits of face-to-face contacts. But results have been mixed (e.g., Kraut & Kiesler, 2003; McKenna, Green, & Gleason, 2002). On the positive side, one study found that people who used Facebook reaped some benefits in enhanced social capital, particularly if they were low in self-esteem- and might be less likely to initiate face-to-face encounters (Steinfield, Ellison, & Lampe, 2008). But other research found that increased Internet use comes at a cost to relationships with family and friends and can increase depression and loneliness (Kraut et al., 1998). Melanie Green and her colleagues noted that people are drawn to Internet communication because it is easy, less risky than talking to real strangers, and immediately gratifying. Over the long haul, though, she found a decrease in general life satisfaction associated with an increasing ratio of these "ersatz social engagements" to real conversations (Green et al., 2005). As with all of life, every benefit comes at a cost. Sometimes the costs of new technology are like the costs of mind-altering drugs - they don't show up for a while, at which point we may be addicted.
Highlighting the trade-offs involved in a relationship-free life, the main character in Up in the Air falls for another frequent flyer (played by Vera Farmiga), and decides that relationships matter after all. But when he arrives at his girlfriend's house for what should have been the Hollywood ending, he discovers she has another life she never thought necessary to mention, given the unrestricted and uncommitted nature of their affair.
How does Up in the Air stack up as an evolutionary Oscar contender?
The other movies we've reviewed so far (Avatar, Hurt Locker, District 9 - click on each title for our review) have confronted the main characters with a difficult choice involving a fundamental human motive - whether to fight with one's own tribe or the downtrodden enemy, for example, or whether to risk one's life for another person. In Up in the Air, there is never a clear dramatic choice. When the main character decides to come down to earth and get involved, he makes the decision in a somewhat inauthentic manner, and it ends being futile. Neither alternative -- living without commitments or getting involved in family life - is presented in an especially appealing manner, and in the end we were left a bit confused and alienated. This led Dave gives it a C (remember we're using a tough standard, since at this point we're only reviewing movies up for Best Picture). Though movie critics can be forgiven for being jaded about Hollywood endings, there's a reason people like them. Doug gives it a B+, though, for depicting an interesting psychological conflict of modern life, even if it didn't strike a satisfying resolution.
Coauthored by Douglas T. Kenrick
References
Crabb, P. B. (1996). Answering machines take the "answering" out of telephone interactions. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 11, 387-397.
Crabb, P. B. (1999). The use of answering machines and caller ID to regulate home privacy. Environment & Behavior, 31, 657-670.
Green, M. C., Hilken, J., Friedman, H., Grossman, K., Gasiewski, J., Adler, R., & Sabini, J. (2005). Communication via instant messenger: Short- and long-term effects. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 35, 487-507.
Kraut, R., & Kiesler, S. (2003). The social impact of Internet use. Psychological Science Agenda, 16, 8-10.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologist, 53, 1017-1031.
McKenna, K. Y. A., Green, A. S., & Gleason, M. E. J. (2002). Relationship formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction? Journal of Social Issues, 58, 9-31.
Steinfield, C., Ellison, N.B., & Lampe, C. (2008). Social capital, self-esteem, and use of online social network sites: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 29, 434-445.
