Dir: Tony Gilroy
Movies come in many shapes and colors, that much is obvious to even the most casual movie-goer. As a movie-phile I am not above pigeonholing any film that I feel warrants it, and Michael Clayton, in my opinion, warrants a good pigeonholing. I enjoyed the film. I think, however, it is a vehicle for one actor, and for him alone. George Clooney is a great actor, and this movie does a wonderful job of focusing on him, but to the exclusion of nearly everyone else who rounds out this star studded cast.
Michael Clayton is about a lawyer who holds the thankless role of being the “fixer” in a high-powered legal firm who represents huge multinational corporations when their deprivations lead to the odd class-action lawsuit. When the actions of a fellow attorney in the firm threaten to bring down the tenuous house of cards a chemical company has built for itself, Michael is called on to bring the errant lawyer to heel, convince him to put his clothes back on and start taking his meds again, and must do all this while the thoroughly evil head of the thoroughly evil corporation is pulling out everything from her thoroughly evil bag of tricks to eliminate any possible legal string from being pulled to unravel her tailor-made white-color corporate power-suit. The result, predictably, is said unravelling, and along the way we watch the thoroughly evil corporation as it is painted in darker and darker shades and money and power trump ethics at every turn. Michael, who appears to be the antithesis of the common man, is colored as an anti-hero until the last frames of the movie when his own ethically gray choices are redeemed by a last act of character defining heroism. But that is just the plot.
George Clooney's personal history of anti-corporate, pro-environmental political stances aside, this movie is all about him carrying a story for the director. It isn't a bad story, though it isn't all that original. The character of Clayton is a troubled anti-hero, as I mentioned, estranged from members of his family even as he tries to hold onto the relationship with his son, whom he sees as often as any divorcee is able given the company-oriented choices he has made which likely led to the divorce. As an example of what is original in this character study is how the director has allowed this to become merely a facet of Michael and his son's life, rather than pelting us with the bricks of morality many other directors may have resorted to. Michael is a flawed creature in a self-serving world, and isn't above the resentments we all hold on to when our relationships let us down, whether it be our families or our business partners, yet this is life as normal as life gets. Michael is dealing with issues concerning his brother, concerning his role in the company, concerning his clients, concerning the choices he made to arrive where he is. And instead of hammering home the heavy consequence of not always taking the ethical high-road, Michael Clayton is just a man struggling from one day to the next, bouncing back and forth as he strives to handle each issue in his life. At one point, as Michael is driving back from a family birthday party where his estranged brother made an uncomfortable appearance in front of his son; he stops the car and gives his son a short, heart-felt acknowledgment designed to guide him along life's obstacle ridden path. The scene isn't forced, but rather filled with the frustration of a resentful brother and essential father trying to do what is right, and not knowing what that right thing necessarily is. And Clooney carries the role of Clayton with as much subtlety as the director and writer asked for, a testament to the chemistry that must have been present on-set. The performance, the entire portrait, is therefore much more satisfying to behold, because it isn't forced, it is simply realistic.
Which is such a contrast from the rest of the characters in the film. The errant lawyer, over-played by the otherwise wonderful Tom Wilkinson (who just can't seem to keep his clothes on after “The Full Monty”) is more caricature than believable brilliant but bipolar trial lawyer who finds his moral compass late in the game and can only see the most self-destructive methods for righting the wrongs of his past. Tilda Swinton tries to evoke a level of humanity in her portrayal as the corporate demon, but her wonderful performance just isn't given the legs to really run. Sydney Pollack doesn't even try to repaint his portrayal as lead partner in the legal firm in shades of gray, letting the stereotype of the self-serving lawyer be his only muse. Nope, George Clooney is the only actor here allowed to put his best foot forward. And though he does, with a performance that evokes sympathy as well as disgust, his is the only character with more than 2 dimensions. I guess that shouldn't be a surprise; after all, the movie is named “Michael Clayton”.
I liked the movie quite a bit, because it is very well made, has a compelling story and a compelling performance by a great actor. It is refreshing in it's portrait of a man being human, making human choices, and struggling to find the conscientious path when that path isn't clear. It isn't a huge surprise at the end, but it is satisfyingly executed. If anything, it is a reminder that not all pieces of art are required to be brilliant or break the boundaries of whatever medium they exist in. Some pieces of art are simply well made, and a pleasure to appreciate.
While I agree that the movie was about one character's journey (what do you expect from a movie with a person's name as the title?), I have a different take on the message. I didn't find the people in the corporate side or the law firm side to be particularly evil in the story. I think they were people in difficult situations making choices that sabotaged their own integrity. And the movie suggests that there are many people like that in the world. In fact, almost all of the other characters in the film, however briefly seen, have some integrity issues.
ReplyDeleteBut the focus of the movie seems to me to be that it is possible to maintain one's integrity even in the midst of challenging circumstances. Even though it isn't easy. Even though it might not make you rich or well-liked. The fact that only one character in the film who does so speaks to the rarity of that choice.