The 10 Most Monstrous Jason Reitman Quotes From One 10-Minute Conversation with Roger Ebert
Until today, I'd somehow and quite miraculously managed to avoid any direct contact with the solipsistic bore that is Jason Reitman, confident in the knowledge that he was already well taken care of by the cadre of sycophantic film bloggers curled obediently at his feet, content to snatch up whatever pie-chart crumbs or slivers of contemplative self-regard should happen to tumble from his constantly moving lips. Well, that was nice while it lasted. Roger Ebert has just posted a series of short video conversations with Reitman -- in Chicago for his aggressively tweeted audience with Queen Oprah -- and while the legendary film critic assessed the Up in the Air director as "forthright and thoughtful," I probably would have gone with very different adjectives. Here then, in no particular order beyond that of awfullest to awfullest, are Reitman's ten most monstrous quotes.
1. "This movie that I'm writing right now -- I know what actors I want for it. I'll be able to go to them easily, and presumably it will be easier to greenlight than my first movie, or my second."
2. "It's easy to get caught up in a moment and think, 'Oh, I've been offered some giant studio film or a superhero franchise or some actor wants to meet with me about a project they want to do.' And it's easy to get caught up in a moment because it's flattering. But you can't do a movie because it's flattering. You have to do it because it's in your bones."
3. "My personal gut test is when I think about the movie that I'm considering, if when I think about someone else directing that movie it feels worse than that same director having sex with [my wife] Michelle, that's how I know I need to do this movie."
4. "The thing I'm writing right now, if someone else made it? I'd want to kill them. If someone else made Up in the Air or Thank You For Smoking or Juno, I would have wanted to rip their head off. I need that same sort of passion for every project I take on."
5. "Hopefully I will carry that fire as long as possible. It seems that most directors don't. For whatever reason, most directors don't."
6. "I was talking to Cameron a little bit ago, about how the tentacle in The Abyss was the first step of an evolution that led to the character in Terminator 2... I feel as though Thank You For Smoking was the first step to making Up in the Air."
7. "I needed to go through a three-film journey to make Up in the Air, that said so much of what I wanted to say about the politics of this economy, the politics of midlife crisis, and female midlife crisis vs. male midlife crisis, and the complex identity crisis that working women go through. All these ideas, and they kind of [began in] Thank You For Smoking and built to Up in the Air."
8. "Everything I've wanted to turn into a film becomes something new and different when it becomes a movie...Each time I work with an author, I say to them, 'A book and a movie are different things.'"
9. "I had a take on Confederacy of Dunces, for example. But I've never had a take on Catcher in the Rye."
10. "What I do feel is that Up in the Air is the most indicative film of 2009. It is the portrait of 2009. And when you look at this State of the Union that happened a couple of days ago, that was all about unemployment being at its highest since 1983, and all about job creation, and you realize how this film is kind of a portrait of America right now...I hope that doesn't come off arrogant. I really don't mean it that way."
· Jason Reitman in conversation [Roger Ebert's Journal]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
I have no problem with anything he said. But then again, I don't hate Jason Reitman just because I never want to see "Juno" again.
"...a three-film journey?" Idiot.
Let's cut him some slack. These were 1st draft answers. Without a co-writer.
I'm sensing #3's answer might leave him Up In The Air when it comes to sexual gratification.
If he makes Confederacy of Dunces I will cry.
Great opening paragraph, Seth.
I find nothing wrong with these quotes; hardly monstrous.
God I hate this motherfucker.
I'd hardly call any of these quotes "monstrous." Pompous or pretentious seems more accurate, though those surely would have led to a less sensational blog headline. These are about what I'd expect from a spoiled, son of Hollywood, who has received the sort of success he's received in recent years, and never, maybe, learned how to be humble. All of this is forgivable, I think, due to the fact that he's clearly got talent.
I'd hardly call any of these quotes "monstrous." Pompous or pretentious seems more accurate, though those surely would have led to a less sensational blog headline. These are about what I'd expect from a spoiled, son of Hollywood, who has received the sort of success he's received in recent years, and never, maybe, learned how to be humble. All of this is forgivable, I think, due to the fact that he's clearly got talent.
so he's a little strange, perhaps a little arrogant. Certainly not monstrous. I may not want to meet him in person, but I love his work, and I'm excited for his next film, whatever that may be. Hopefully not Confederacy of Dunces.
Apparently, unlike Mr. Reitman, Mr. Abramovitch has never felt any passion or excitement for anything, other than being needlessly mean and pointlessly critical of a director who could hardly be labeled a villain of cinema. These quotations, rather than being cringe-inducing, really showcase how much Reitman cares about his craft. When so many directors out there are worrying more about a bottomline or pandering to bad taste, it's nice to have a director who believes in what he can offer cinema (and back it up, too). This article falls completely flat and makes this site seem juvenile and resentful and callous. Save your scorn for a more worthy target next time (possibly your bitter self, Mr. Abramovitch?).
No, "monstrous" is just about right.
And hey Jamie--bite it. Hard. Someone who uses the word "cinema" as excessively and as pretentiously as you do shouldn't dare to criticize a writer as good as Seth. Do us a favor and just continue to masturbate quietly alone, m'kay?
he comes off as ridiculously arrogant, which he is. probably a byproduct of knowing that he has the luxury of having his father buy rights to films he wants to make. i'd like to see him actually write a script that isn't based on anything else and create meaningful characters.
Well, the guy did go to a school where a bunch of offspring of people in the industry and pretentious hacks go, so it's hardly surprising that he's conceited.
Vagina.
Zing du jour!
He didn't really say anything too outlandish. He's got a high opinion of himself and of his work. That's true of just about every filmmaker. Companies give them millions of dollars to make things. Of course they feel they're important. And of course he feels his movies are defining the human condition. You ever listen to any given director commentary on DVD? Nine out of ten will tell you how THIS movie HAD to be made and how important it was and how it really gets down to what life is all about.
In the extra features on American Beauty, director Sam Mendes goes on and on about the lighting on this one scene and how it means this and it means that and how important it is, and the lighting guy says, "I don't disagree with anything you just said, but I didn't think about any of that. I just know where to put the lights."
I enjoyed Up In the Air. I didn't think it defined 2009 but I can see how someone who made it might think so. I HATED Juno and can go the rest of my life without ever seeing a moment of it again. And Thank You For Smoking was actually fun.
Jason Reitman has no problem with his ego. Big deal. At least he's talking about himself rather than slamming other people just for the hell of it.
-Jack
Saw the video. The only one that came off kinda funny was number 10. The guy's a talented director. So what if he likes the smell of his own shit. I'd rather this than bullshit fake humility.
I read your piece, then watched the video. These quotes that you're penalizing this filmmaker are completely on the mark for the questions posed to him. He seemed intelligent, gracious, funny and very human -- I actually had the antithesis of your reaction - he's totally charming. Your editorial take on Ebert's interview with him is juvenile and seems like it was written by a jealous 14 year-old. This guy has made three terrific, successful movies that show a lot of smarts and a lot of heart. He was complimentary to the other films in the race, he was thorough and thoughtful in his remarks and your obnoxious take on it is completely ridiculous.
Seth was kind enough to leave off quote number 11>>
"I find it very important to drink the blood of newborn babies during the directing process. It helps me focus and feeds my undead soul."
Your opening paragraph reads as sour grapes that you're not him.
All very true, except for one thing, and that's that THIS GUY IS THE WORST.
I read movieline from the very start, and defamer before that. Seth Abramovitch is my second favorite contributor (kyle Buchanan is my first). He is not mean-spirited in his comments. This site is awesome. But I don't really agree with the comments, I guess its just testing out a backlash for how overrated up in the air is.
Why the hate for this particular guy? He's low-key, unpretentious, tries to do good work... yeah, he takes himself seriously, but is that so terrible? I didn't love Juno either, but Thank You for Smoking was cute, and Up in the Air was okay... just don't understand the extreme hate. How can he be the "worst" in a universe with Michael Bay, Oliver Stone, James Cameron, Nancy Meyers (did you see "It's Complicated"? Talk about "worst").
Actually, I doubt these were off-the-cuff, as I heard several of these responses, almost verbatim, in an interview with Elvis Mitchell on NPR a few weeks ago (#'s 3,4, 8 and maybe 7).
Next »