Tony Gilroy: Michael Clayton (2007)

TONY GILROY: MICHAEL CLAYTON (2007)

A mainstream moral mess with some smarts

Tony (Bourne franchise scripter) Gilroy, directing as well as writing this time, strives for a kind of disheveled moral grandeur in this thriller about corporate lawyers who slowly turn on the chemical company U/North, which one of their ace partners has been defending against a $9 million class action lawsuit for six years. This is Arthur (Tom Wilkinson), a man with a "chemical imbalance" who goes off his medication and has a psychotic break (his role's been compared to Peter Finch's in the 1976 Network)--thus temporarily concealing from his associates the fact that he's found damning evidence and has gone over, quite rationally and determinedly, to the class action side. Michael Clayton, the law firm's corporate fixer or bailout man ("janiter," he prefers to call it) is summoned to rescue Arthur and smooth things over with U/North. But Arthur's meltdown at a deposition-taking in Minneapolis draws the attention of Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton), the chemical firm's general counsel. In Gilroy's somewhat sexist portrait, she's seen constantly pondering her outfits and practicing her public lines. No such self-doubt from the law firm's main partner, Manny (Sydney Pollack).

Gilroy's idea of corporate lawyers turning into whistle blowers (Michael's family origins--Irish Catholic cops--come in handy) makes for a drama that holds the attention. One wonders how it would have played without Wilkinson's flashy acting, Swinton's proven skill at playing the evil sprite or wicked witch, or Clooney's matinee-idol glamor. You can call this a down-and-dirty role for George, but it's really much less so than the one he had in Syriana. This drama hovers, sometimes successfully, sometimes a bit uneasily, between the Clooney-Soderbergh team's edgy stuff and their pop money-makers. Clayton wears sharp-looking and very becoming dark suits (at all times) and expensive Swiss watches, drives a sleek new black company Mercedes, and can bum $80,000 off Manny to pay his debts from a failed bar-restaurant venture--and still have a fews thousand left over to indulge his high-stakes gambling habit. Even his failings are glamorous, and he has a dashing final scene where he brings the bad guys quickly to their knees. It's one of several wonderfully cinematic moments by Gilroy, who has jumped into the Hollywood directorial A-list with this debut--depending on boxoffice receipts, that is; but the critical reception is looking good.

People get surveilled, then killed; one attempt fails. The plot pins all the bad stuff on Crowder; incredibly, she takes decisions without needing approval from above. These are larger-than-life portraits, with some fudging of details, some incredible strokes of luck--and too much loud portentous music from an annoying soundtrack constantly tellng us how important and climactic every scene is. Still, Gilroy knows how to tell an action story, and I don't buy that this is only a a clumsy knockoff of a 70's muckraking movie. Gilroy's into something different. It's original of him to focus on a lawsuit without even entering a courtroom, showing a deposition (the key document is a scientist's report from fifteen years before that that the U/North CEO signed off on)--making the main lawyers either half-crazy (Arthur) or essentially canny businessmen (Manny) or mop-up guys who can make a deal about just about anything (Michael). "The truth can be adjusted" is the movie's slogan, a transparently ironic one. Truth can be adjusted--until it can't. Maybe; maybe not. But isn't it pretty to think so--that the truth will out, even in corporate law? There is an element of feel-good manipulation throughout this slick tale, but it's caviar to the general: it assumes the mainstream audience isn't made up of Neanderthals, after all.

Overall I agree with your review, which could be categorized as a "qualified thumbs-up" or "recommended with reservations" (You tell me if that would be off the mark). I personally wouldn't want to dissuade anyone from watching Michael Clayton. It's entertaining enough, with solid production values. Besides, we do need films about corporate wrongdoing, given its prevalence in the real world.

However, the film is getting high praise and I'm afraid it will get some attention during awards season. That would be quite undeserved, in my opinion.

I found the narrative disorientation of the first 15 minutes quite welcome and intriguing. It's fun not to know where a film is going. Michael Clayton turns out to be fairly simple, because the peripheral stuff is mostly used as "filler". This is no Syriana. As you say, "the plot pins all the bad stuff" on the female character, a "somewhat sexist portrait". Swinton is not only "the villain" here but made to look less attractive than ever. She's gained some weight around the middle, sweats profusely and has little panic attacks. One wonders if the male partners in the firm know what she's doing or condone it. I think we're meant to think so. I hope so, otherwise the logic lapses in the film would be more questionable.

Talking about peripheral stuff. I noticed your review doesn't mention the hero's kid and his brother. No reason to do so when they're not really significant characters. Problem is Mr. Gilroy gives them a certain importance as far as giving them screen time and specific characteristics. Then tosses them aside without much consequence. Again, they are used mostly as "filler". One could say the threads that involve them are wasted.

Basically I see the film as a story of personal redemption. But it's hard to be terribly moved when Michael "gets" social consciousness (or concern for the little people) only after he's convinced his friend Arthur was killed by their own employers.

Again, my choice of commentary stems from the high praise the film has received and the anticipated, potential recognition. There are certainly enough reasons to watch and enjoy the film. From a personal standpoint, an added bonus was the accurate depiction of a man under the grips of a manic episode (not quite a "psychotic break"). Mental illness isn't typically dramatized properly in commercial movies. Tom Wilkinson is absolutely perfect in this role.

I always leave stuff out, Oscar--the result of writing so many reviews in a short time--I saw 44 movies in a month in NYC and wrote about a lot of them. And I did omit mention of the brother and the kid. Actually MC's behavior toward his kid is interesting, and I liked the way Clooney handled those moments. I like this film so much, found it so enjoyable, I wanted to see it again, but went to see it again here in Paris because a young friend and I wanted to go to several movies and I thought she'd enjoy it too. At first her reserved view was that it was "professional," but a day or so later she said she'd decided she liked it.

When you say "This is no Syriana," that can cut both ways. Syriana is complex and politically in our ball park, but hardly a success; its storytelling is something of a disaster, and few could tell what the hell was going on. I don't fault Michael Clayton for its clarity.

I also would not fret over the film's getting conwideration at awards time, meaning the Oscars. The Oscars isn't exactly the time when our most sophisticated choices get recognition. I think Michael Clayton is a good Oscar film--as I said, it assumes the mainstream audience has a brain, and it also presents significant issues.

It's logical to say this is a redemption story, but the term is a big highfalutin for the character, who calls himself a "janitor." He gets morally waked up, sure, but he also just sees an opportunity ang goes for it, parrtly as a way of repaying his friend--he and Wilkenson's character are established as being pals--for somehow letting him go under, not seeing the mortal danger he was in.

I agree Wilkinson is great. I think they all are, really. Even if I fault the weay Swinton's character is presented in the editing, she's still fine, and so is Sydney Pollack, who always has authority and seems real.

Time will tell about the over-praise, which I have not looked into, and we'll see how that all goes. I'm happy to praise a mainstream movie when I think it's really well done and intelligent. And I'm not sure I think Syriana is really better, all things considered, though I get what you meanl. That is an edgier role for Clooney. This secures even bigger megastar status. He seems to be pretty hugely hyped in France. He's on the cover of Le Figaro magazines that are all over town. But then, so is the fact of Gabe Nevins on illuminated posters at Metro stops...

I was actually supporting and agreeing with your leaving out any mention of the kid and the brother and Michael's relationships with them. Why? Because Gilroy does nothing of lasting significance with this material. He doesn't care enough about it or doesn't know how to make it sing. It's seemingly not part of his experience: there's nothing like it in those Bourne scripts that got him the helmer job. It's only worth mentioning as a failed aspect of the film. In my opinion, that is.

If you wanted to see Michael Clayton again, then you clearly liked the flick more than I did, even though your review is not entirely positive.

I was a bit off topic--I get what you mean; indeed the brother and son are not important, but this is a tricky issue, because in two hours, in a film, secondary characters -- and in an action film at that -- can't necessarily ever be presented in depth. The brother was definitely superficially done. i thought as I said that Clooney's manner with the son did interestingly suggest a kind of dad-to-son 'tough love' manner that was real.

I went to the movie again because, yes, I do enjoy it. There are much better films that I don't enjoy re-watching very much. It depends. Anyway, I was with a young woman I know here, who is deeply into movies and works part time on them, and i thought it would be interesting for her to see it. And though I am focusing on French films, sometimes they are very frustrating because i have trouble catching all the dialogue, so it's nice to take a break with an English language one. I may have understood Jia's Still Life best because French subtitles I can follow fine. That was great, and I will be posting a review of it. It's the best (new) film I've seen here so far.

She and I went to Paranoid Park yesterday for two reasons--it was the critics' choice of the week here--movies open on Wednesdays in Paris--and again I thought she should see it. Unfortunately she was getting a cold and dozed off. It had just opened and even though it was one of the main cinemas of Paris, they had the sound way too low. I guess nobody complained because they were reading the subtitles anyway....it spoiled the effect because the sound is very important needless to say, especially for the music.

Looking forward to both STILL LIFE and PARANOID PARK. The former opens here in January and the latter in March. I decided not to get the import dvd of STILL LIFE and wait to watch it theatrically. Rosenbaum has been writing about it since he watched it at Venice '06, where it won the top prize.

Almost always, during my frequent European travel in the late 80s and 90s, we were assigned to specific seats in movie theaters. It wasn't sit-where-you-please like in the US. Is it like this in France or Italy today?

Reserved seats--no. Theaters in Paris don't seem at all crowded in the daytime anyway.

I'll get to Still LIfe shortly.

I saw Proibido proibir (Jorge Duran) yesterday at the arthouse MK2 Beaubourg.

MICHAEL CLAYTON is no ERIN BROCKOVICH (2000), no ENEMY OF THE STATE (1998), no THE FIRM (1993), no PELICAN BRIEF (1993), nor THE THREE DAYS OF CONDOR (1975) all of which I enjoyed better than this attempt at moralistic corporate behavior. Actually, I think Michael Moore does a better job at dramatizing this issue than having to reduce it to a fictional corporate thriller.

I agree with all the less praise worthy comments made above, including the less than stellar us of the boy and brother. For a mainstream movie, the beginning 15 minutes was confusing, distracting, and less than interesting having to force the audience to think, puzzle, instead of just experience and absorb the important scenes. Let the actors just do their job.

The only performance that was fascinated was Tilda Swinton as Karen Crowder who gave the only captivating, authentic role in the movie...I felt her complex character, one that I actually believes exists, and it's not just females but males too. But in reality, it still is a man's executive business world and I have to believe that Swinton and the script captured the essence of the sexist reality in which we live in. Her performance was an award winning one in my mind, much like the powerful performance from last year's academy nominee Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly in THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA (2006), though I see Swinton's role more of a supporting role than leading role in the movie. This was really George Clooney's role, but I feel the script let him down. I didn't find Michael Clayton anyone I would have hired to do the job he does, in fact, it's still a bit unclear what his talent was.

It would have been a much better movie if the son and brother had been jettisoned and the roles of Tom Wilkinson and George Clooney expanded back to the previous mental episode that supposedly Clooney's character handled. The actual movie scene regarding this supposedly tossed aside explanation came off more like a television 60-minute serial episode instead of a full-length feature movie that would have allowed the audience to experience the personal relationship grow, develop between these two men, making their scenes more powerful and more emotionally potent.

I had difficulty getting into this movie that couldn't decide between covert ops thrills, the mental illness angle, the gambling debts backstory, the father-son, brother-brother angle, the corporate intrigue that still was buffered by the real players being hidden in this movie. There was just so much thrown together, a manipulative plot with a book and tree thrown in as if it was cute. Overall, I really hoped this movie would capture my attention like the trailers but instead it deconstructed itself into various scenes stitched together with a script that didn't allow George Clooney to really shine. Instead he appeared to clumsily move from one scene to another not as a performer but as a talented actor having to go through the paces.