And yup: didn’t want to analyze the marriage aspect, since that strays too far from my intent to read the movie as a commentary about work, primarily.

You also have not analyzed how and why Bingham advises Jim to “go get her” after more or less acknowledging Jim’s analysis and depressing conclusion regarding marriage.

With all his cleverness Bingham also misreads something Alex says (have to watch it again to get the exact words) and responds with, “Sounds like a trap” whereas she is more consistent with her views, talk and action. Not knowing the plot, I was ready to be hugely disappointed when Bingham flies to Chicago and it looked like a goody-goody Hollywood ending but the twist was keeping in line with the overall tone.

I found the “You don’t know what you want” part interesting, coming from Alex who is carefully maintaining life in a conventional successful mode and the recipient is a guy who seems to do what he wants however unconventional it may appear.

I didn’t miss that scene. I just didn’t know what, if anything, to make of it. What do you think the significance is? General existential tiredness? Him remembering the naive-romantic suggestion from Natalie that if she had that many miles, she’d just get in a plane and go somewhere crazy?

David — I don’t think becoming a counselor for the laid off would have fit with the Bingham character at all. His ‘backpack’ seminar has a different intent, and he even gives that up.

Another scene I didn’t analyze because I couldn’t quite make sense of it, was his interrupted phone call to the freq flyer concierge, attempting to transfer miles to his sister so she could do a round-the-world trip. He doesn’t finish that call and says “I’ll call you back” … that is significant I think.

I agree with you about the movie on different levels. Typically, I watch a movie of this sort at least 4 times to get the subtlety, sometimes it is so nuanced it escapes you. I am yet to watch it a second time.

When I look back, this movie has a dull, drab, lifeless, understated and a sense of immediate sensitivity to current economic downturn in its narration. Although Fargo is not a close parallel, Fargo too evokes a sense of space, mental state and and weather. The theme, font and colors in the initial credits followed by the depressing aerial view shots from a plane set the tone of the movie. In that sense, I felt that the director’s intent was to convey an almost fatalistic view of life in general. Based on what is revealed about Alex, the movie is a commentary on the cruelty one witnesses as one navigates through life – where intentions have little bearing on outcomes as seen through the eyes of Bingham, Alex, Bingham’s sister and the young bright eyed Cornell grad Natalie.

Bingham is a smart guy, perhaps a little too smart and detached but life’s cruel plans don’t spare Bingham either, his detachment is a coping mechanism to simplify life but fate will get its way.

I am surprised you missed an important scene in your analysis which can throw some light on the writer’s intent. In the last scene, Bingham is disillusioned but gets back to his usual flying routine, he is at an airport, looks at the electronic board for flight status and lets his hand go off his baggage. After this scene, the credits roll.

He wasn’t, and that left me disappointed, because the movie is still interesting, but ambiguous as to what impact it wanted to leave the viewers with (in the similar way you posted as having apparently conflicting messages).

I think Natalie’s reaction is just a visceral response to the suicide incident. There is no evidence that she has added a humanist/empathic dimension to her management philosophy. Rather than staying to make the layoff industry more human, she runs at the first sign that life can be hard.

As you say, there is no evidence that her views on personal life have changed (she is probably still looking for that laundry-list guy).

Venkat

What about Natalie? We don’t know what happens to her romantically, but she seems to have grown up a bit, and moved her career in the direction that she wants it to go, rather than allowing it to float along.
Also, I don’t think he’s fooled by the seminar speech, he just takes its implications too far. The speech is right, at least as much of it as we hear, and perhaps extrapolating a bit. Choose your commitments carefully, you don’t want to be weighed down by people, a job, a mortgage, etc., that aren’t worth it. Some people are worth it, a lot are not.