Down with “Up in the Air”

“Up in the Air” played on HBO the other night.

I didn’t watch. Why would I want to watch a movie about a guy who flies around the country firing workers when I’ve already experienced the shock of a layoff? Still living it, in fact.

True, the movie stars George Clooney, one of my favorite actors. But I just couldn’t bring myself to watch it. Too soon, too painful.

My sister saw it and told me the basic plot. It’s more a movie about the isolation of the Clooney character than it is about the impact of what his character is doing to the poor slobs he’s putting out of a job. Oh, yeah, they have some short interviews with just laid off people, but that’s about it. If the unemployment rate hadn’t reached such a crisis level, would the producers have added those segments?

Because Hollywood likes nothing better than to take a current social issue and gloss over it. To prop up unemployed people like so many circus freaks so the audience (and the cast and producers) can say, There by the grace of God go I.

We go to movies to escape, but with millions of people out of work, why would any of us want to see a movie about a guy who terminates employees on behalf of their companies? Do you think I want to be reminded of the day I was told to pack up my desk and leave?

If you want to see an escapist movie starring George Clooney, go see “The American.” I did. He and the Italian scenery look great.

And just how accurately will any movie portray the plight of the unemployed? How do convey emotional and financial stress on screen? Remember how movies and TV shows in the ’70s turned Vietnam vets into crazies. Will today’s movies do the same with laid-off workers?

But there could be some hope on the horizon. I saw the trailer for the soon-to-be released “Company Men.” The movie stars Ben Affleck as a thrown-overboard executive.

A couple of scenes hit home: There’s one in which the Affleck character complains about being an unemployed loser. Yes, it’s whiny, but that’s pretty much how all laid-off people feel.

In another, Affleck is seen shouting into a phone at the person who presumably told him to pack up and leave. He wants to know why he was fired. Yeah, I’m still waiting for that answer.

Perhaps “Company Men” will take a more realistic view of unemployment in 2010, the impact it has on a person’s psyche and family life. But will the producers tack on a happy ending just for the sake of having a happy ending? Will it be parable about what’s really important in life? Who needs a six-figure salary and a fancy car when you have your family? To me, that is just as unrealistic and frankly, insulting to unemployed people. Of course, family comes before any job. But we need a paycheck to keep a roof over our heads. And how often do we hear about a couple that broke up because the spouse—usually the husband—lost a job? Hard to support a family and have any sort of family life without a steady paycheck.

It’s easy for some rich Tinseltown producer, director or actor to preach to us about the goodness and supremacy of family life when he or she goes home to a mansion in the Hollywood Hills or a villa off of Lake Como with some sexy plaything. They are not facing the prospect of being homeless. And why “Company Men?” Why not “Company Women?”

Will I see the movie? I’m not sure. I really don’t want to go there again, and I really don’t think any movie can realistically convey the emotional depth and individual nature of what a person goes through after he or she has been laid off.

On the small screen, even Donald Trump has gotten into the act. This season of “The Apprentice” features mostly out-of-work contestants. I watched the first episode and I have to say, The Donald seemed somewhat sympathetic. But there is something a bit cruel about the prospect of telling someone they are fired when they have been, well, already fired. The whole setup smacks of desperation and exploitation. And it didn’t escape my notice that nearly all of the contestants are fairly young and good looking. I guess that means old and unattractive people cannot be hired. Ever. Again.

After the first person was fired, Trump did mumble something about getting her an interview at one of his holdings. And I thought to myself, well, if he really wants to help out unemployed people, why not just hire all of them? Why make them go through the rigmarole (and humiliation) of some silly contest? In his vast empire, there must be dozens and dozens of openings at any one time those people would be qualified to fill.

Because in reality, unemployed people don’t need a movie or TV show to tell them what it’s like to be out of work. We know.

We need a job.