When the leaves turn color, it is is sign that the summer blockbusters have left town and smart movies are back at the multi-plex. Screenwriter Tony Gilroy's first directorial effort with "Michael Clayton" is a most satisfying and intelligent exercise in the art of combining a big legal case with a personal drama worth knowing about.
We've had plenty of movies involving evil corporations and morally compromised lawyers in recent decades and plenty of them had world weary or compromised lead characters. This one is different, and it is no accident that the movie is named for its lead character.
Yes, the ending could be seen as a bit of a bow to what we we were hoping for, but; so what? I don't expect perfection. I expect a movie to "talk up" to its audience. And, when you have a large cast who is uniformly wonderful and a screenplay that combines a believable legal drama with a believable personal drama, then beauty can be found in more than the autumn leaves.
Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy, 2007)
-
Belmondo
- Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:19 am
- Location: Cape Cod
-
Cronenfly
- Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:04 pm
It certainly isn't a perfect film, but it does have many virtues, among them uniformly excellent performances (Clooney and Wilkinson especially), a (mostly) sharp script, and a well-modulated visual approach (neither too bland nor too flashy), to name a few. It's the first thing that Gilroy has been involved with that really worked for me (perhaps he intentionally saved his best writing to direct himself); after the Bourne films I couldn't really care less about his work, but now my interest is renewed. I'm not fond of a lot of modern thrillers, but this one was solid. Not really brilliant or transcendant in any way, but a good deal more enjoyable and worthy than a lot of recent movies I've seen.
-
Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
As the others have said, this is a very solid and enjoyable film. It is as much a character study as it is a legal thriller, and it succeeds admirably in both respects. It's absolutely Gilroy's best script, and a very strong directorial debut. He's definitely got a command of camera. It doesn't hurt that Robert Elswit is his D.P.
If you can tolerate the slimy David Poland, this Tony Gilroy interview in one of his "Lunch With David" segments is pretty good.
If you can tolerate the slimy David Poland, this Tony Gilroy interview in one of his "Lunch With David" segments is pretty good.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
I'm surprised there isn't more discussion about this film. I saw this tonight and was very impressed. On the surface, the film is a legal thriller about the evildoings of a Monsanto like corporation. But Gilroy's script thankfully doesn't go to the pulpit, and instead delves into a deep character study about the continually shifting lines of personal ethics. As others have mentioned the script and performances are uniformly excellent. And the final scene with George Clooney and Tilda Swinton is among my favorite scenes this year.
A mature film, a crisp thriller and a solid genre flick. Definitely worth checking out.
A mature film, a crisp thriller and a solid genre flick. Definitely worth checking out.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
Agreed. This is an excellent film deserving of far more praise than it has so far received. I assume part of the hang up has to do with the nature of the movie itself; that it is designed unapologetically to satisfy certain genre expectations and therefore it's assumed that it can't possibly be all that good.
This is nonsense, of course. The expectations are satisfied and then some but the fact that Michael Clayton functions in this way shouldn't be held against it. It is more commendable, in my mind, that it exists willingly in that sort of space and, because of the uniformly superb performances and almost always superb script, elevates the genre back to where it should be to begin with. The sad degeneration of our own demands for "standard cinema entertainment" are put into high relief here. Also, the prejudices we may have for the merits of pictures of this type are taken into consideration by the filmmakers who understand that this bias can extend to our ability to sympathize with the main character as well.
What I like best about the movie is the way in which the character of Clayton is revealed to us and, in a sense, to himself through the exchanges he has with others. This really is no groundbreaking thing, it's just such an unusual approach now in big pictures of this sort that we're almost shocked to be exposed to it again. I also like the genuinely sober route Clooney goes with the character. This sensibility is in evidence throughout, so obviously it has a lot to do with Gilroy's direction (as it should); nonetheless, it never failed to impress me. Clooney's become so damn good at these kind of performances and I appreciate them so much; I can't think of anyone else right now who has refined such a worn down exasperation, a lived quality that speaks volumes without saying anything directly. Clayton emerges from the other side of a great, self imposed barrier, sustained and fortified over many years. We can see the obstacles of disappointment and resignation he has made for himself and has to overcome.
The rest of the cast provide rock solid support. Wilkinson is typically great (he's the best thing in Woody Allen's new Cassandra's Dream, as well), completely convincing in a role which could have come across as mannered and self-conscious in most other hands. Wilkinson sells you this man's psychic collapse in a very real way and in so doing mirrors the silent, repressed one taking place behind Clooney's eyes. Pollack is also note perfect here in another role many would have wanted to amp up and turn into some kind of bald representation of amoral villainy. Pollack's choice to toss off his lines with a casual flippancy brings to mind Victor Ziegler, of course, and appropriately so. And Tilda Swinton as the ostensible main villain of the piece is allowed wonderful moments to show the breaks in her composure and to accent the fact that her desperation has turned her into the best villain at hand for Michael's spiritual needs, one of proximity and convenience. She is ultimately just a figurehead and her faltering uncertainty lends great pathos to her genre dictated defeat. I was especially moved by her line at the end "you don't want money?" delivered with such fearful incomprehension that it simply adds one more layer to her confrontation with Michael, evidencing how multi-layered it really is, the way it is all merely theatrical gesture but a necessary one for both parties.
And that's the essence of it, I think. The seemingly gratuitous scene of communion with the horses is revealed as anything but; rather, that sequence is the tip off that Michael Clayton as a film is after bigger game than the standard Grisham variety. Because that scene cannot be reduced to something literal, something that serves the merciless engine of plot, but instead acts as a kind of epiphanic moment, an invitation to perceive things differently, to reframe assumed hierarchical values. It lets us know off the top that Michael's journey will lead to this, that it contains the seeds of this inherent within it and that, in turn, allows us to appreciate the nuances of Clooney's performance, to sympathize with him more deeply and to recognize aspects to his character he himself struggles to keep suppressed.
The opening flash forward ruins the suspense of that later sequence if suspense was Gilroy's main priority. His acknowledgment here is that it is not. I admire this move because it suggests that Gilroy wants us to take Michael's hard won rebirth seriously as a thing that costs a lot and takes a lot to purchase. In other words to encourage us to care enough to feel it deeply along with him, to see it as worthy of the extension and expenditure of our emotions. The best most other "lawyer finds his soul" movies can do is make broad statements and purely symbolic gestures, all generally subordinated to their real concerns with plot development. Michael Clayton stands out because of its understanding that the spiritual rebirth of the privileged is always apt to be suspect to us but that we need to be able to believe it and believe it's important, for the individuals involved and for the rest of us who hope to feel the trickle down of their renewed sense of purpose.
This is nonsense, of course. The expectations are satisfied and then some but the fact that Michael Clayton functions in this way shouldn't be held against it. It is more commendable, in my mind, that it exists willingly in that sort of space and, because of the uniformly superb performances and almost always superb script, elevates the genre back to where it should be to begin with. The sad degeneration of our own demands for "standard cinema entertainment" are put into high relief here. Also, the prejudices we may have for the merits of pictures of this type are taken into consideration by the filmmakers who understand that this bias can extend to our ability to sympathize with the main character as well.
What I like best about the movie is the way in which the character of Clayton is revealed to us and, in a sense, to himself through the exchanges he has with others. This really is no groundbreaking thing, it's just such an unusual approach now in big pictures of this sort that we're almost shocked to be exposed to it again. I also like the genuinely sober route Clooney goes with the character. This sensibility is in evidence throughout, so obviously it has a lot to do with Gilroy's direction (as it should); nonetheless, it never failed to impress me. Clooney's become so damn good at these kind of performances and I appreciate them so much; I can't think of anyone else right now who has refined such a worn down exasperation, a lived quality that speaks volumes without saying anything directly. Clayton emerges from the other side of a great, self imposed barrier, sustained and fortified over many years. We can see the obstacles of disappointment and resignation he has made for himself and has to overcome.
The rest of the cast provide rock solid support. Wilkinson is typically great (he's the best thing in Woody Allen's new Cassandra's Dream, as well), completely convincing in a role which could have come across as mannered and self-conscious in most other hands. Wilkinson sells you this man's psychic collapse in a very real way and in so doing mirrors the silent, repressed one taking place behind Clooney's eyes. Pollack is also note perfect here in another role many would have wanted to amp up and turn into some kind of bald representation of amoral villainy. Pollack's choice to toss off his lines with a casual flippancy brings to mind Victor Ziegler, of course, and appropriately so. And Tilda Swinton as the ostensible main villain of the piece is allowed wonderful moments to show the breaks in her composure and to accent the fact that her desperation has turned her into the best villain at hand for Michael's spiritual needs, one of proximity and convenience. She is ultimately just a figurehead and her faltering uncertainty lends great pathos to her genre dictated defeat. I was especially moved by her line at the end "you don't want money?" delivered with such fearful incomprehension that it simply adds one more layer to her confrontation with Michael, evidencing how multi-layered it really is, the way it is all merely theatrical gesture but a necessary one for both parties.
And that's the essence of it, I think. The seemingly gratuitous scene of communion with the horses is revealed as anything but; rather, that sequence is the tip off that Michael Clayton as a film is after bigger game than the standard Grisham variety. Because that scene cannot be reduced to something literal, something that serves the merciless engine of plot, but instead acts as a kind of epiphanic moment, an invitation to perceive things differently, to reframe assumed hierarchical values. It lets us know off the top that Michael's journey will lead to this, that it contains the seeds of this inherent within it and that, in turn, allows us to appreciate the nuances of Clooney's performance, to sympathize with him more deeply and to recognize aspects to his character he himself struggles to keep suppressed.
The opening flash forward ruins the suspense of that later sequence if suspense was Gilroy's main priority. His acknowledgment here is that it is not. I admire this move because it suggests that Gilroy wants us to take Michael's hard won rebirth seriously as a thing that costs a lot and takes a lot to purchase. In other words to encourage us to care enough to feel it deeply along with him, to see it as worthy of the extension and expenditure of our emotions. The best most other "lawyer finds his soul" movies can do is make broad statements and purely symbolic gestures, all generally subordinated to their real concerns with plot development. Michael Clayton stands out because of its understanding that the spiritual rebirth of the privileged is always apt to be suspect to us but that we need to be able to believe it and believe it's important, for the individuals involved and for the rest of us who hope to feel the trickle down of their renewed sense of purpose.
-
Jeff
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 9:49 pm
- Location: Denver, CO
dx23 wrote:From dvdactive.com:
ArtworkTitle: Michael Clayton (IMDb)
Starring: George Clooney
Released: 19th February 2008
SRP: $28.98
Further Details:
Warner Home Video has officially announced Michael Clayton which stars George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, and Sydney Pollack. This Tony Gilroy directed drama will be available to own from the 19th February, and should retail at around $28.98. The film itself will be presented in anamorphic widescreen, along with an English Dolby Digital 5.1 Surround track. Extras will include a commentary by writer/director Tony Gilroy and editor John Gilroy, and additional scenes. HD-DVD/DVD Combo and Blu-ray releases will also be available for around $35.99 a pop. We've attached the Blu-ray artwork below:
-
Andre Jurieu
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:38 pm
- Location: Back in Milan (Ind.)
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Generally, legal thrillers are largely concerned with "the case". As such the structure breaks down two clearly marked categories on one side are the people who are "right" and on the other those who are "wrong" (or "good" and "bad"). Then, the resulting film is about righting the wrong, proving and winning the case.Andre Jurieu wrote:Could you elaborate a little bit about how this is a reinvention?Antoine Doinel wrote:Michael Clayton is very much both a throwback and reinvention of the legal thriller.
The remarkable thing about Michael Clayton is how much of a backseat the actual case in the film takes to the characters. Here is a film in which no character is clean, no character really wins and at the end of the film, they are forced to reckon with who they are. Michael Clayton is concerned largely on the moral choices we make in order to lead our daily lives. Everyone in the film has blood on their hands to some degree. And really, the difference between the characters played by Tilda Swinton and George Clooney is merely what side of the table they are on, and just how far they are willing to push to get what's theirs. One could easily imagine Michael Clayton going as far as she does if he were in his shoes.
And while the case is eventually resolved, nothing is neatly tied up. By this point too many people are damaged, dead or lost that it practically seems moot.
Michael Clayton is devastatingly sober film - one that quietly questions all of us on what we are willing to do for self-preservation, for our careers, for our children and if we will be able to handle the (eventual?) blowback.
-
Antoine Doinel
- Joined: Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:22 pm
- Location: Montreal, Quebec
- Contact:
Michael Clayton is being re-released on 1000 screens on January 25th.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
-
hot_locket
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 7:39 am
I really enjoyed this film.
Kind of with they went with something more along the lines of the poster -- one of my favorites in recent memory-- for the DVD art, though.
Then again, DVD covers don't tend to prominently feature taglines more than the actual title :P
Kind of with they went with something more along the lines of the poster -- one of my favorites in recent memory-- for the DVD art, though.
Then again, DVD covers don't tend to prominently feature taglines more than the actual title :P
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
A wonderful appreciation by Dan Sallitt.
-
Fletch F. Fletch
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 3:54 pm
- Location: Provo, Utah
GreenCine Daily interviews Gilroy.
-
John Cope
- Joined: Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:40 pm
- Location: where the simulacrum is true
-
King Prendergast
- Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 1:53 pm
- Contact:
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
-
Marcel Gioberti
- Joined: Thu Dec 27, 2007 9:55 pm
- Location: Torino, Italy
Yeah...Pakula, Pollack, blech. This felt so much like The Firm, which was a snooze-inducing, incredibly cheesy bore.
Lawyers are evil scum of the earth, devouring souls and sapping their own in the process. Thanks, I got the memo in the 19th century. Although Michael Clayton perfected the form, that doesn't make it exceptional work.
Clooney was Clooney, dialing in a generic iteration of the same shit we've seen from him for years. Tilda Swinton puts forward the tired cliche that to be successful in a man's world, women have to be ten times as ruthless. That's certainly no less true in 2008 than it was at any other point in American history, but rather than critique the issue, Clayton merely replicates it for entertainment purposes.
Lawyers are evil scum of the earth, devouring souls and sapping their own in the process. Thanks, I got the memo in the 19th century. Although Michael Clayton perfected the form, that doesn't make it exceptional work.
SpoilerShow
The potential for genius left the film the moment Tom Wilkinson was killed off. His performance was the only intriguing one on the screen.
SpoilerShow
The penultimate scene was so unexpectedly contrived, it was hard to swallow the laughter. I dunno if there's an older trick in the book than, "BURN! I've been recording this whole conversation! You're going down!"
Gilroy relied on artificiality instead of following through with something plausible. I preferred the version of Michael Clayton who didn't have the courage or the morality to give up the profession. There's more empathy in an audience who sees a bit of themselves in a character stuck in an unwinnable scenario. I don't mean to mock its happy ending for cynicism's sake. I guess I just wasn't buying it and the ending felt completely tacked on, as though Gilroy was a big fan of Cache and wanted to send up the credits while the audience pondered the great magnificence of the film they'd just seen. Unfortunately, the film was ultimately quite conventional, so there was nothing to digest but cheddar aftertaste.
Gilroy relied on artificiality instead of following through with something plausible. I preferred the version of Michael Clayton who didn't have the courage or the morality to give up the profession. There's more empathy in an audience who sees a bit of themselves in a character stuck in an unwinnable scenario. I don't mean to mock its happy ending for cynicism's sake. I guess I just wasn't buying it and the ending felt completely tacked on, as though Gilroy was a big fan of Cache and wanted to send up the credits while the audience pondered the great magnificence of the film they'd just seen. Unfortunately, the film was ultimately quite conventional, so there was nothing to digest but cheddar aftertaste.
-
Alexander
- Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 6:15 pm
- Location: Here
As far as I could see, Michael Clayton didn't peddle the stereotype that lawyers are the scum of the earth. Yeah in the film they are helping Big Business 'get away with it', but its clear that they don't really like doing it - they have to in order to keep going as a company.
Also, Clooney wasn't just being 'George Clooney'. To make an allegory: it was like he was George Clooney who, when he left ER didn't get a job for 10 years: still got the charm, and the looks, but has just been beat down so much that he doesn't know if he cares about anything beyond surviving.
As for Tilda Swinton, her character was, I guess, masculinised, but not completely. There were several moments when you could see behind that front (the preparation before the interview; deciding what to wear for the boardroom meeting). These made it a more rounded performance, and not just the stereotypical ruthless business woman role.
And the ending - conventional or not, I don't see it as 'happy' - Clayton isn't exactly jumping for joy in the cab at the end. Think about the implications for himself, his job, his law firm.
Agreed about Wilkinson though. Damn good actor and performance.
Also, Clooney wasn't just being 'George Clooney'. To make an allegory: it was like he was George Clooney who, when he left ER didn't get a job for 10 years: still got the charm, and the looks, but has just been beat down so much that he doesn't know if he cares about anything beyond surviving.
As for Tilda Swinton, her character was, I guess, masculinised, but not completely. There were several moments when you could see behind that front (the preparation before the interview; deciding what to wear for the boardroom meeting). These made it a more rounded performance, and not just the stereotypical ruthless business woman role.
And the ending - conventional or not, I don't see it as 'happy' - Clayton isn't exactly jumping for joy in the cab at the end. Think about the implications for himself, his job, his law firm.
Agreed about Wilkinson though. Damn good actor and performance.
-
domino harvey
- Dot Com Dom
- Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2006 2:42 pm
The writing was so good on this, particularly the dialog. It's a shame that in any other year, this would have taken the Original Screenplay Oscar home.
I agree, this film didn't even remotely come off as "anti-lawyer." Marcel G's post reads like a list of complaints from a different film. I went in dreading that it would be an over-edited Bourne-type flick and was just flabbergasted at how good it was-- it's always nice to be pleasantly surprised. This was an exceedingly mature, complex film that was far from the mainstream legal thrilla I had assumed it would be and which Marcel apparently thinks it is.
Wilkinson was fantastic, particularly with his strange relationship with the farm girl-- one of the many aspects that I didn't anticipate in the film. One of the best aspects of the film was Swinton's running-through of her stock answers to questions in her hotel room or apartment beforehand, I don't get the backlash against her, but well I guess that's what makes the internet wonderful.
I agree, this film didn't even remotely come off as "anti-lawyer." Marcel G's post reads like a list of complaints from a different film. I went in dreading that it would be an over-edited Bourne-type flick and was just flabbergasted at how good it was-- it's always nice to be pleasantly surprised. This was an exceedingly mature, complex film that was far from the mainstream legal thrilla I had assumed it would be and which Marcel apparently thinks it is.
Wilkinson was fantastic, particularly with his strange relationship with the farm girl-- one of the many aspects that I didn't anticipate in the film. One of the best aspects of the film was Swinton's running-through of her stock answers to questions in her hotel room or apartment beforehand, I don't get the backlash against her, but well I guess that's what makes the internet wonderful.
-
jesus the mexican boi
- Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 5:09 am
- Location: South of the Capitol of Texas
Domino Harvey, like Sister Mary Ignatius, explains it all for you. I agree wholeheartedly. I really really liked this film. Clooney is always watchable in this and I really liked the interplay between him and cop brother and the junkie brother and how their power shifted throughout the story. Really meticulously scripted, lensed and edited, too. And Swinton's character wasn't a masculinized caricature at all -- I LOVED that so much of her screentime was solo, the self-doubt, the rehearsal, the private terrors, as if she's selling it to herself and knowing it's all an act. No easy answers, even if the ending has a certain familiarity, it goes beyond. I think Swinton's win was a nod to the entire film -- really. She's excellent, but the whole approach is what nabbed the Oscar. REALLY.
-
Lemmy Caution
- Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:26 am
- Location: East of Shanghai
Well we certainly watched different films. Lawyers here were depicted as desperate, soulless, amoral, duplicitous, and criminal.domino harvey wrote:I agree, this film didn't even remotely come off as "anti-lawyer." Marcel G's post reads like a list of complaints from a different film.
SpoilerShow
The underlying corporate wrongdoing becomes almost a footnote, and Swinton's lawyer goes beyond that by intentionally hiring hitmen. Which was a fairly ridiculous plot contrivance. Lawyers aren't liable for any negligence or criminal acts of their clients, so they generally steer clear of pursuing any illegal acts in the course of their work. The head lawyer is going to resort to murder ... for what? To save some giant conglomerate from paying a large amount of money?
Clooney's lawyer is a gambler (illegal Chinatown gambling) and failed businessman who deals with loansharks, is haggard, and specializes as a fixer operating at best in grey areas. (and for whom somehow $75K is a lot of money).
While the only lawyer who has moral qualms is bonkers, an off-meds depressive with zero support network. And of course he does the right thing by doing the wrong thing as a lawyer and completely violating professional ethics.
Clooney's lawyer is a gambler (illegal Chinatown gambling) and failed businessman who deals with loansharks, is haggard, and specializes as a fixer operating at best in grey areas. (and for whom somehow $75K is a lot of money).
While the only lawyer who has moral qualms is bonkers, an off-meds depressive with zero support network. And of course he does the right thing by doing the wrong thing as a lawyer and completely violating professional ethics.
-
Slothrop
- Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 8:43 pm
I'm not really sure I can add much to the superb observations made by John and Antoine, but I'll try.
First I want to address this "anti-lawyer" nonsense. The film is not a blanket condemnation of the legal profession. It is, rather, a condemnation of a society that elevates money and power above moral responsibility and the good life. Is this a groundbreaking point to make? Hardly. But it is one that I think is worthy of being repeated, especially in the age of Enron and Halliburton.
Gilroy is a classicist. There are echoes of Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles and Aeschylus throughout. The primary debt, however, is to Goethe's Faust. And it is really one of the most effective cinematic retoolings of the Faustian myth that I've seen.
The reason it's so effective is because Gilroy knows exactly the conventions he's working with, so that the characters are less stereotypes than archetypes. The crucial difference, I think, lies in the performances, the dialogue and the dialectical interplay between self-deception and self-awareness that Michael exhibits. Think back to that great exchange where Michael is trying to tell the Pollack that they're working on the wrong side and Pollack reminds Michael that Michael has known this all along. And then there's the earlier scene where the Wilkinson character reminds Michael that he's just a garbage man, which Michael later repeats to the hit-and-run client. The reason Michael has been so good at his job is because he's been able to justify himself by saying that these sorts of compromises are merely a means towards the end. When we meet Michael, he's already been looking to "get out" for some time. But his brother screws that up. The bar goes under and Michael ends up having to pay off a large gambling debt. So he's "forced" to stay in a little longer. Of course, deep down, he knows he's not forced to do anything, but he tells himself he is, so as to lighten the oppressive weight of the decision. Michael is very much a man of Sartrean "bad faith". At least until his epiphany.
The performances are really stunning all the way around. That last shot, with the camera focused on Clooney's face in the back of the cab, says everything about both the character's journey in the movie and George Clooney's journey as an actor from ER to now. He's emptied all the mannerisms and tricks and is now comfortable just being.
First I want to address this "anti-lawyer" nonsense. The film is not a blanket condemnation of the legal profession. It is, rather, a condemnation of a society that elevates money and power above moral responsibility and the good life. Is this a groundbreaking point to make? Hardly. But it is one that I think is worthy of being repeated, especially in the age of Enron and Halliburton.
Gilroy is a classicist. There are echoes of Plato, Aristotle, Sophocles and Aeschylus throughout. The primary debt, however, is to Goethe's Faust. And it is really one of the most effective cinematic retoolings of the Faustian myth that I've seen.
The reason it's so effective is because Gilroy knows exactly the conventions he's working with, so that the characters are less stereotypes than archetypes. The crucial difference, I think, lies in the performances, the dialogue and the dialectical interplay between self-deception and self-awareness that Michael exhibits. Think back to that great exchange where Michael is trying to tell the Pollack that they're working on the wrong side and Pollack reminds Michael that Michael has known this all along. And then there's the earlier scene where the Wilkinson character reminds Michael that he's just a garbage man, which Michael later repeats to the hit-and-run client. The reason Michael has been so good at his job is because he's been able to justify himself by saying that these sorts of compromises are merely a means towards the end. When we meet Michael, he's already been looking to "get out" for some time. But his brother screws that up. The bar goes under and Michael ends up having to pay off a large gambling debt. So he's "forced" to stay in a little longer. Of course, deep down, he knows he's not forced to do anything, but he tells himself he is, so as to lighten the oppressive weight of the decision. Michael is very much a man of Sartrean "bad faith". At least until his epiphany.
The performances are really stunning all the way around. That last shot, with the camera focused on Clooney's face in the back of the cab, says everything about both the character's journey in the movie and George Clooney's journey as an actor from ER to now. He's emptied all the mannerisms and tricks and is now comfortable just being.
-
Binker
- Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:53 am
- Location: Tucson
The company isn't her client, it's her employer. Swinton's character is a corporate lawyer. She has worked exclusively for that corporation her entire career. It isn't that farfetched to assume she's formed strong personal attachments to that corporation and her position within it. It's actually completely in line with her character.Lemmy Caution wrote:The underlying corporate wrongdoing becomes almost a footnote, and Swinton's lawyer goes beyond that by intentionally hiring hitmen. Which was a fairly ridiculous plot contrivance. Lawyers aren't liable for any negligence or criminal acts of their clients, so they generally steer clear of pursuing any illegal acts in the course of their work. The head lawyer is going to resort to murder ... for what? To save some giant conglomerate from paying a large amount of money?
I also felt that the movie was strongly hinting at a romantic relationship between her character and the big boss she was giving the interview with. Seemed like there was a deliberately awkward dynamic to the interview scene, with each being afraid of giving something away. She praises him as being instrumental to her fast rise within the company, and, later in the film, when she's being given updates on the situation, she seems terrified of upsetting him.
-
flyonthewall2983
- Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
- Location: Indiana
- Contact:
Re: Michael Clayton (Tony Gilroy, 2007)
This holds up so well, maybe especially now. Watching it again I can't help think that Tilda Swinton's character basically predicted Kellyanne Conway.