| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 09/28/2007 : 16:25:00
Michael Clayton boasts a trio of the classiest executive producers around - star George Clooney, Anthony Minghella, and Steven Soderbergh, plus Sydney Pollack as a co-producer who also appears onscreen. With direction and screenplay by Bourne writer Tony Gilroy, and yet another cogent performance by co-star Tom Wilkinson, the stage is set at the very least for intelligence and a story of significance that both triggers and transcends the thriller element.
It's a story that explores both the abuse of corporate responsibility and the effects of individual accountability.
I'll readily admit I wouldn't place the film squarely in the thriller genre, if only for its pacing and subtle focus on characterization. I am tempted to home it in the neighbourhood of Casablanca, even though it doesn't quite match up to that classic. But it qualifies as that film's little brother.
Very much appreciated are the moments of expressionism. They're not many, and much as they evoke Godard's playing with time, flash-forwarding as well as flash-backing - an assured Gilroy makes them his own, allowing us insights into two opposing characters.
The first is Clooney as Clayton, a divorced lawyer with strong family ties, still trying to come to terms with conflicted feelings for his sharp, imaginative little boy. Clayton's been sidelined from a so-so future in the courtroom to a low-profile high danger existence as a dependable 'fixer' in a huge law firm.
For years he's been assigned to support Wilkinson; they refer to themselves as 'janitors'. Both handle the firm's biggest client, a multi-national agribusiness giant developing chemicals that may not be quite as safe as they'd have the public believe.
Which brings us to the other conflicted character, the company lawyer [Tilda Swinton], whose otherwise empty life and desire for corporate acceptance nudges her into unwise and irrevocable choices.
Wilkinson's increasingly bizarre bi-polar behaviour, subverting the very case he leads, serves as the catalyst for a story of human complexity rather than one obsessed with second-guessing badguys. In that, Gilroy ups the ante on his approach with Bourne.
Gilroy's Emmy award winning younger brother Tony complements the direction with editing that is as precise when it's lyrical as when it's building tension.
With over 20 years' experience and a credit roll as long as your arm, James Newton Howard's score avoids all the pitfalls of drowning out the nuances onscreen. It helps carry the action.
This is no wham-bam-blast-you-ma'am tic-tac of a film that melts away on your tongue before you get out on the street. But if you'd like to see a carefully constructed tale enriched and enlivened by cast and crew, book now!
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/17/2007 : 03:56:38
I don't think we needed to see Clayton being great at his job -- in fact, I think that's effectively communicated just by casting George Clooney in the role. The man exudes competence, intelligence and charisma -- in fact, I think he might be a very limited actor because he's unable to effectively portray human weakness.
But anyways, my problem isn't that we don't see him doing good, it's that we actively see him doing bad. What the hell's he doing in that first scene? What is he doing through the whole movie? He can't stop Wilkinson, he can't help the hit-and-run guy, he just doesn't look very good at his job. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 09:21:44
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I don't understand why we need to be shown Clayton actively being a great fixer. Can't we accept because he is on the payroll of a major law firm and everyone consistently says he's good at his job we can take that on trust?
It's not that it was essential, but I think it would have been a good idea. Sure, we can take it on trust if we like, but the same goes for anything missing from any film. Given that being a fixer is not really that tangible for most people to clearly understand, I would count it as the type of thing that should be shown. Also, for me, the opening scene is trying to show him fixing, so it may as well show it properly. I don't actually agree that he is supposed to be not at the top of his game in job terms - other than by being distracted by his personal problems.
I should add, though, that I did really enjoy the film - I just feel it could be one that over time I feel less keen about. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 19:32:49
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
While I don't go as far as MBI, whose fervency I find both amusing and admirable, this is what I say.
Yes, I saw the great acting, the high production values, the editing, the music, the this and the that, and they were all great.
But where was the film?
See, here's the thing -- I recognize all these things too. And they just make me angrier.
My last post doesn't give this film enough credit, and I'll freely admit that. I didn't really feel like my intelligence was being insulted, and I never stopped being interested in what was going to happen next. Compare to a genuine borefest like DeNiro's "The Good Shepherd" (which has all of "Michael Clayton"'s flaws times a million) and you can appreciate more what Michael Clayton does right.
But the "great" acting, directing, music, editing, etc. -- they aren't great as much as they are tasteful and professional. I don't like my art to be tasteful and professional, I want them to provoke a reaction, dammit. Good taste is anathema to good filmmaking, especially for something which is really not that different from a hundred other movies. "Michael Clayton" attempts to set itself apart from other genre movies by sucking all the air out of the drama, the same approach used by John Hillcoat's "The Proposition" and Michael Mann's "Miami Vice," and they both made me feel the same way. I wasn't angry or annoyed at "Michael Clayton" while I was watching it, only afterwards when I realized that I felt as much emotion about it as math homework.
A far superior take on similar subject matter is Changing Lanes, which also features Sydney Pollack in the exact same role. (I just realized I've never seen a single movie Pollack has directed, but he's a fantastic actor.) Or take something like The Godfather, which is a very adult film, yet still one of the most quotable and memorable films of all time. What is A Few Good Men without the Jack Nicholson performance? Something no one would ever mention ever. What Changing Lanes does right is make what's at stake crystal clear. It makes the moral dilemma legitimately ambiguous, and the correct path genuinely difficult to ascertain, and it makes the Ben Affleck character legitimately morally culpable. What exactly does Clooney have to feel guilty about? He wasn't really involved in the U/North mess, and there's not really that much pressure for him to keep his secrets to himself. He doesn't even really consider it. When he does change his mind and brings down U/North, it seems more motivated as revenge for the attack on his life than any loyalty to his mentor and certainly not the cancer victims, who are a complete non-presence in the film. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 18:29:21
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
While I don't go as far as MBI, whose fervency I find both amusing and admirable, this is what I say.
Yes, I saw the great acting, the high production values, the editing, the music, the this and the that, and they were all great.
But where was the film?
It's in the space between you and the screen.
There's no need to be like that about it, is there?    
|
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 17:52:34
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
While I don't go as far as MBI, whose fervency I find both amusing and admirable, this is what I say.
Yes, I saw the great acting, the high production values, the editing, the music, the this and the that, and they were all great.
But where was the film?
It's in the space between you and the screen.
|
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 17:33:50
While I don't go as far as MBI, whose fervency I find both amusing and admirable, this is what I say.
Yes, I saw the great acting, the high production values, the editing, the music, the this and the that, and they were all great.
But where was the film?
|
| demonic |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 16:43:53
I don't understand why we need to be shown Clayton actively being a great fixer. Can't we accept because he is on the payroll of a major law firm and everyone consistently says he's good at his job we can take that on trust?
I think I'd feel more cheated, not less, if he suddenly pulled a genius ploy to get the hit and run driver a comfy ride - it was an aspect of the film I admired. Also we have a sense that this is not a man currently on the top of his game or his life.
It's interesting reading MBI's take on it, and it goes to show we were watching two completely different films in our minds - his shitty little genre movie was my best acted film of the year - standing favourably alongside the great 70s drama thrillers. Perhaps it's all expectations these days - hence the annoyance you can feel at reading a stack of glowing reviews and then feeling short changed. I thought it was a damned sight more interesting than most of the things I've seen this year. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 11:54:14
quote:
Originally posted by BaftaBabe
I'm pretty sure that opening scene's not there to show how great a fixer he is - there are plenty of instances within the film that indicate that. I believe it's there to introduce you to the behind-the-scenes world of bigtime lawyering. I'm not sure I had any idea that in a mega-firm such as his there was anyone who even held such a job.
What the scene does pretty effectively is to let you see Clayton's knowledge of the way the law works. The 'victim' has unrealistic demands - Clayton's seen it all before and accurately predicts the outcome of the case. He puts it in perspective and in the circs does the best for the client even though the client doesn't think so.
When is the film is he shown to be a great fixer (as opposed to when he is on his own quest) then? I'm not sure that scene shows anything at all surprising. Most ten-year-olds would be able to tell that the client's expectations were ridiculous, and it's obvious that a firm would send someone round straight away to a client who has a retainer with them. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 11:06:06
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Yep, I have to agree that it is rather odd that the film gives no example of how great a fixer Clayton is - he could hardly be shown doing less than in the hit-and-run scenario.
I'm pretty sure that opening scene's not there to show how great a fixer he is - there are plenty of instances within the film that indicate that. I believe it's there to introduce you to the behind-the-scenes world of bigtime lawyering. I'm not sure I had any idea that in a mega-firm such as his there was anyone who even held such a job.
What the scene does pretty effectively is to let you see Clayton's knowledge of the way the law works. The 'victim' has unrealistic demands - Clayton's seen it all before and accurately predicts the outcome of the case. He puts it in perspective and in the circs does the best for the client even though the client doesn't think so.
The fact that Clayton's boss doesn't take him to task for the way he's handled things - quite the opposite - lets us know how valued he is to the firm. But - belt and braces - it's also why Clayton is assigned to what is going to be a low-profile baby-sitting job on Wilkinson. Especially since he's so knowledgeable about both W. and UNorth.
It's because all this is wrapped up in layers of morality that the film transcends its genre. It's in that sense that I compared it with Casablanca - both transcend genre to convey very different kinds of moral messages. Yes, of course, Casablanca hits more home runs - but Clayton's in the ballpark. Bourne is probably watching from the rooftop across the street.
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 08:57:36
Yep, I have to agree that it is rather odd that the film gives no example of how great a fixer Clayton is - he could hardly be shown doing less than in the hit-and-run scenario. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/15/2007 : 02:36:18
Well, here's the debate: Is this the worst movie of the year or just the most overrated? I guess if I'm being honest, I have to say the latter, although I very much want to say the former. This movie was a complete waste of my time, and if it were not for Tom Wilkinson's memorable lunatic performance, a complete borefest from start to finish.
I don't think there's a real problem with the material itself, just this stupid movie's pretentious, joyless approach to it. This is a movie desperately grasping for significance and complexity that it just doesn't have, and that's never clearer than when a frustrated cop tells Clayton, "You've got all these cops thinking you're a lawyer, all these lawyers thinking you're a cop, you've got everybody fooled -- except you. You know exactly who you are." It's one of the best lines of the preview and one of the worst of the movie -- in context, it's a complete non sequitur.
I've seen this movie praised for not sinking to cheap theatrics when cheap theatrics are what it desperately needs. It plays for moral ambiguity, but in the Michael Clayton universe the line between good and evil is wide and obvious. The UNorth company is bad, opposing them is good. There are no good lines, no memorable scenes, no punch, and it doesn't have close to any justification for its oppressive gravitas. George Clooney plays some kind of problem-solver like Harvey Keitel in Pulp Fiction, except God knows what he actually does. When the man in the first scene demanded to know how exactly he was supposed to be helping, I thought the same thing, and I never got an answer. The Clooney persona is far too smart for his character to be as far behind as he in this movie. And the opposite goes for the Tilda Swinton character, who somehow reached her high position despite apparently being on the verge of puking at any given moment.
Clooney's debt problems and Swinton's anxiety attacks are supposed to make them more real and more human, but this only makes them less compelling, not more. Realism is for realistic movies, and this movie is far from it. If Clooney is guilt-ridden at all, we barely ever see it, and we barely have any indication why he even would. I didn't feel what he felt, and the dullard director never tried to make me.
The fact that this movie is riding high on great reviews just signifies to me that if you look smart and dress smart, people will assume you are smart -- the Hollywood horseshit ending should make that obvious. This is not a serious or mature look at anything, it's a shitty little genre movie that has convinced itself that it's some kind of high art. Immediately after seeing it, me and a buddy decided we had to go see We Own the Night to wash the taste out of our mouths. |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 12:28:24
Again, I agree with all that Dem says here, but its really just bolt-ons to the predictable. Yes, there were a few seconds where we weren't sure which way Michael was going to go, but it turned into the predictable - how many times have you seen it - where the guilty incriminate themselves unnecessarily and, in view of this one's profession, incredibly, and justice is done - run credits...
I'm not complaining about the cost of my cinema ticket with this film by any means, I got my money's worth, but it lacks the quality of having something important to say which makes The Conversation still memorable 35 years later.
As for the final taxi scene, I hope they'll be paying royalties to The Long Good Friday. 
|
| demonic |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 11:59:37
I entirely bought the concept that he'd sold out Eden for the money that he desperately needed and was genuinely approaching Karen for a pay-off. The fact that it turned around, and was still psychologically believable, made it out of the ordinary for me. Also the dream-like scene with the horses isn't the stuff of your bog standard thriller. I just wish Gilroy had had the nerve to show that long final shot of Michael's face with its mass of conflicting emotions in the cab entirely without credits. |
| demonic |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 11:58:47
I think what raises it out of the ordinary in terms of plot is a clear sense at the end that you really don't know which way Michael is going to go - *Spoilers ahead* |
| Whippersnapper. |
Posted - 10/03/2007 : 01:19:51
Well, I can't disagree with anything too much said by Baffy and Demonic, except that I can't feel any associations at all between this film and Casablanca. For me you might as well compare it to Steamboat Willie.
However, despite the excellent performances, and the excellent this and the excellent that, I still get a So what? feeling about the story. It's the same feeling I got about The Insider, another film it has been compared to. (And although I can understand comparisons to The Conversation, that film never gave me a So what? feeling.) I think the difference is that, in the '70s, exposure of corporate malfeasance was new and shocking. But, sorry guys, it just isn't shocking any more.
I think that, stripped bare, the plot is entirely predictable and formulaic, and the reliance of strong acting and production cannot make it interesting for long after the final credits have rolled.
|
|
|
