Michael Clayton

[Kurosawa Fan]

I know a lot of you have seen it already, but considering it's a BP nominee I figured it deserved its own thread.

It was kind of interesting watching this and Gone Baby Gone back to back. Both films suffered from the same problems, just in a different order. Where as GBG started with promise and then floundered in the second act, only to come back strong, Michael Clayton floundered for the first half hour, then established itself in the second act and slowly built up steam for a great finale. Clayton works much better, as there wasn't the awkward, distracting break in drama and tension that occurred with GBG. Still, it would have been top ten of the year for me had it been about 20 minutes shorter. It really needed one more rewrite/edit to tighten the script/finished film.

Clooney was solid, though I'm really surprised he grabbed a nomination. I wasn't wowed by anything he did with the character. Swinton on the other hand was brilliant. I'm really pulling for her now. I'm a fan of her work, but this was really special. At times she seems to shine above the material, almost calling attention to herself (if that makes sense), and perhaps that speaks more to the quality of the films I've seen her in rather than her performances, but with this role she completely disappeared in the character and immersed herself so naturally into that universe. I'm incredibly impressed. Wilkinson was great as well, but not as good as most of his competition for the Oscar.

Overall it was a solid, but flawed film, and a surprising choice for a BP nomination. I'm not really sure what really grabbed the voters, but whatever it was it didn't grab me the same way. Still, it was worth the watch.

[Rowland]

Any thoughts on the subject matter? Your review here is entirely related to technical details like performance and pacing.

[megladon8]

This is one I'm really looking forward to seeing.

I'm definitely a big Clooney fan. The guy can act.

[Rowland]

And it's interesting that you felt the opening act floundered, because I thought that was the most gripping part of the movie, after which it grew progressively less interesting, but still generally engaging, right up to its fizzle of a climax. I love how the movie opens with Wilkinson's paranoid voice-over and virtually no traditional exposition.

I wasn't too impressed by any of the performances, though Wilkinson was certainly the most entertaining for his unrestrained hamminess and how he contrasted tonally with the rest of the movie.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Any thoughts on the subject matter? Your review here is entirely related to technical details like performance and pacing.

To be honest, I didn't find the subject matter all that intriguing. I think corporate greed and shameful business practices are fairly overdone at this point. That's kind of why I only focused on the technical details. The details of the story weren't that much more engaging than something like Erin Brockovich. It seemed to play it pretty safe on all counts.

EDIT: And please don't call anything I write a "review". That would be a disservice to most "reviews" out there.

[Rowland]

To be honest, I didn't find the subject matter all that intriguing. I think corporate greed and shameful business practices are fairly overdone at this point. That's kind of why I only focused on the technical details. The details of the story weren't that much more engaging than something like Erin Brockovich. It seemed to play it pretty safe on all counts.I was actually surprised by how little the movie seemed to care about the corporate greed part of the equation, ultimately being more interested in Clayton's arc and how everything plays off him. If only said arc was more convincing...

EDIT: And please don't call anything I write a "review". That would be a disservice to most "reviews" out there.Hmm. How does blurb suit you?

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hmm. How does blurb suit you?

Ramblings probably works best. :P

And I can see where you're coming from with Clayton's arc. His distraction in that field felt a tad phony. Perhaps too much time spent with supporting characters crippled his arc a bit.

[Wryan]

Ramblings probably works best.

A vomitorium of pleasures?

[Ezee E]

I still think the movie started off masterfully, up until it flashed back, and lost all the momentum it had going.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The first 5 minutes with Wilkinson's voice over was fantastic. After that it took far too long to get going again.

And thinking more on it last night, I'm not sure I see much of an arch for Clayton. I'm not sure he's any different at the end credits. I don't get the impression that he would have handled Swinton and U North any differently 4 days prior. I think this is best shown in the end, when instead of having the taxi take him home, or to the airport, etc., he simply tells him to drive until the $50 is gone. He's not leaving the city, or his job, or anything else. Perhaps his perspective has changed a bit, but I got the feeling he'll be right back to where he was in a short period of time.

[Dillard]

My favorite film of the year.

The fall had a few different films address a theme I'd like to call The Search for Meaning. I suppose that's a pretty wide net to cast, but I'd like to go with it anyway. In The Darjeeling Limited, we have three brothers go on a "spiritual" journey across India, looking not only for Meaning, but for family, which, they discover, is kind of the same thing. Into the Wild features a protagonist who imagines that solitude in the Alaskan wild will provide Meaning for him; however, he discovers, en route to Alaska, that it is the people he meets along the way that make life the joy that it is. Life shared is life lived.

Michael Clayton is a different bird altogether in that it doesn't feature a physical pilgrimage; yet, it was for me the most powerful film of the three in how it dealt with this Search for Meaning. Clayton, the janitor, the chimney sweep, the salt of the earth. At the beginning of the film, he's not exactly looking for Meaning in the same sense as the characters above. He'd be happy with some financial security (his foray into the bar business sucked his savings dry), or even a little extra so he could get back to the card tables. However, as the story develops, Clayton is forced to look at his deepest values as he pieces together the grim facts, confronted with a prophetic madman, a corporation willing to do anything to cover up the damaging facts, and a law firm willing to overlook the facts to get paid. Meaning comes when Clayton makes hard, ethical decisions that go against the grain of what he'd rather do (not get involved).

As opposed to the films mentioned above, perhaps Meaning doesn't come as much for our protagonist as it comes for the viewer watching. The archetypal Michael Clayton makes for a pretty good Everyman. Don't we all in some ways feel like Clayton? Underappreciated? Pressed for funds? Maybe found our niche but had to make concessions to our true sense of vocation? Trying to make sense of some of the rotten things we see happening around us, whether that's at work, at home, on the news, in the paper, etc.? Trying to be a good father and familyman when it's hard to find the time or energy? Walking out of the theater, I felt a rush of exhilaration; I had witnessed a story of redemption, a story that wasn't afraid to ask some tough questions, and do it in such a way that the questions weren't cheap.

At the end of the day, Clayton might drive around in that taxi for a while, he might return to his janitorial work at the firm, he might return to the card tables, but at least he'll be able to face his son when he picks him up the next day for school and feel like he can encourage his son to do something right in the world, not because he feels bad about wrongs he's done, but because he knows it's possible to do good. That's a pretty hopeful story, and a good answer to The Search for Meaning.

Oh, and it's also well-written, well-acted, with fleshed-out characters, a tightly-strung plot, a fantastic score, and even a poetic moment out in nature. What more do you want?

[Kurosawa Fan]

I think you're giving Clayton too much credit. If an attempt hadn't been made on his life, I can't see him making that same decision. In other words, he wasn't taking the high road and doing what was right in the face this moral dilemma, but rather he was looking for revenge, for payback. If he had been taking the high road, striving to do what's right so he could look his son in the face, he would have done it the second he saw that memorandum. Instead, he walks away from the law firm with tail tucked between his legs, pays off his debts, and heads to the nearest card table. Heck, his friend was killed by these people, which becomes evident to him after just a little bit of consideration, and he still does nothing. Doesn't play like a guy doing the right thing, a man striving to do good.

[Dillard]

I think you're giving Clayton too much credit. If an attempt hadn't been made on his life, I can't see him making that same decision. In other words, he wasn't taking the high road and doing what was right in the face this moral dilemma, but rather he was looking for revenge, for payback. If he had been taking the high road, striving to do what's right so he could look his son in the face, he would have done it the second he saw that memorandum. Instead, he walks away from the law firm with tail tucked between his legs, pays off his debts, and heads to the nearest card table. Heck, his friend was killed by these people, which becomes evident to him after just a little bit of consideration, and he still does nothing. Doesn't play like a guy doing the right thing, a man striving to do good.I don't think it's cut-and-dried in how it's presented. Sure I give Clayton a lot of credit, but I also think the muddled nature of the situation (and perhaps even motive) adds to the earthiness of the character. I think he's a lot easier to identify with here because he isn't Jefferson Smith going to Washington with bright eyes, a head full of ideas, and a sash full of merit badges to take on Institutional Corruption. None of us are. I certainly didn't say that Clayton's slate is spotless. Just, he ended up doing the right thing, he wants to do right by his son and encourage his son to do good in the world (as was evidenced in the moving monologue in the car after they run into Timmy), and that's hopeful. Incredibly hopeful.

He also could've tried to blackmail the corporation for money and walk away from everything. He didn't. He made the right decision.

[lovejuice]

And it's interesting that you felt the opening act floundered, because I thought that was the most gripping part of the movie, after which it grew progressively less interesting, but still generally engaging, right up to its fizzle of a climax. I love how the movie opens with Wilkinson's paranoid voice-over and virtually no traditional exposition.


i agree with rowland here. the story is trite, one that has been told in countless number of times. yet i appreciate how the director and writer camouflage this fact at the beginning with elaborate storytelling. for me, as all the pieces come together, i find it progressively less and less interesting. the climax is cool in a clooney ass kicking sort of way. still it's my least favorite BP nom.

[Sycophant]

I say this about practically everything, but I really wish I could remember this film better. Perhaps it was because I was bracing myself for a more typical cog-in-the-system-discovers-how-evil-the-system-is-and-takes-a-stand picture, but I was pleasantly surprised by how the film refused to paint a crisis like this in such simple terms. Clooney does in fact act out of self-interest more than a typical movie hero would, and there's something very relatable about that. Something adult. The story is like much of what we've seen before, but the execution was so remarkably proficient on every level that it worked.

At the very least, KF, you recognized how awesome Tilda Swinton was. Go you! :pritch:

[Rowland]

I still think it's pretty clear that the movie is about a man learning the error of his ways and striving to better himself, albeit in a situation where his hand is practically forced. Heck, the primary internal conflict in the movie for Clayton is between self-preservation and selflessness. He just handles himself cautiously, learning from his friend Wilkinson that a compromise needs to be struck.

[DavidSeven]

Yawn. The film is a 2-hour third act. Development doesn't exist here. Add the fact that just about every element of this film is completely sterile and lifeless, and you have something that fails to be compelling at any level. It's monotonous event. I wanted to beg Tony Gilroy for a tonal shift. This is the artistically void and soon-to-be-forgotten critical favorite that seems to find its way into the Best Picture category every year.

[Duncan]

Watched this a couple nights ago (and then watched Gone Baby Gone, a la KF). I liked this one much better that the Affleck flick.

I agree that the film is more a character study of Clayton than it is about corporate politics, which I think is a very good move. The "character arc" is a much touted storytelling device that I have rarely understood. I see people in real life who, if they change at all, change only very subtly. Why is it that in films we expect drastic shifts in personal paradigm within two hours? This film's summative shot is the vertically oriented overhead pan that follows Clayton down the two escalators near the end. Gilroy rests on the image of these two tracks making their circuitous way in opposite directions. We make our decisions based on the victories of competing forces within us, but those victories are never outright. If Gilroy's metaphor is a touch simplistic, I at least admire him for not following the well worn storyline of the sinner redeemed. This was a much more sophisticated look at a compromised psyche than I was expecting. An excellent film.

[Benny Profane]

I found it odd that they tried to build up all this intensity in the car chase and bombing in the third act when we already knew what happened from the beginning of the film. Felt like an awkward attempt at suspense. I don't see what was so great about Swinton, either. But it was a pretty entertaining movie, nonetheless. Wasn't blown away, but it was a'ight.

[number8]

I found it odd that they tried to build up all this intensity in the car chase and bombing in the third act when we already knew what happened from the beginning of the film. Felt like an awkward attempt at suspense.

Ironically, this was the only part of the movie I didn't find gripping. The rest of the movie had me glued to the screen, but when Gilroy went into Bourne mode with that tacked on car chase, I thought the same thing you did. Overlong and dull.

[Bosco B Thug]

Ironically, this was the only part of the movie I didn't find gripping. The rest of the movie had me glued to the screen, but when Gilroy went into Bourne mode with that tacked on car chase, I thought the same thing you did. Overlong and dull.
Gilroy's ostensive attempts to create suspense in that whole sequence is trickily displaced by our foreknowledge. I thought it added something to that sequence, transforming it into more like a time for contemplation than a suspense sequence. The strange decisions in chronology in the film was one of its most persuasive moves towards depth for me, and I don't think my attention and feelings toward the film (which in the end were lukewarm) wavered during that sequence.

[Grouchy]

I found it odd that they tried to build up all this intensity in the car chase and bombing in the third act when we already knew what happened from the beginning of the film. Felt like an awkward attempt at suspense.
Exactly. Same way I felt about the ending chase in Carlito's Way, by the way, although that's so well directed it's thrilling anyway.

Totally disagree with you about Swinton, though. She was awesome.

[Morris Schæffer]

So he was saved by three horses? What an odd scene. Not necessarily bad or hokey, just odd. If I'm supposed to be reading more into that, I'd like to hear it. Does the notion of sheer luck somehow factor into the thematic crux of the entire movie?

I kinda agree with the dissenters here, but I don't want to dismiss this movie for it certainly felt somewhat sophisticated, well-acted and intelligent. Did it have to be this formal though? Deliberately vague? Character arcs didn't feel completely persuasive here either.

[**]

[Raiders]

So he was saved by three horses? What an odd scene. Not necessarily bad or hokey, just odd. If I'm supposed to be reading more into that, I'd like to hear it. Does the notion of sheer luck somehow factor into the thematic crux of the entire movie?

I kinda agree with the dissenters here, but I don't want to dismiss this movie for it certainly felt somewhat sophisticated, well-acted and intelligent. Did it have to be this formal though? Deliberately vague? Character arcs didn't feel completely persuasive here either.

[**]

I would say the horses represent the film's turning point. They are the symbol relating to his son's book, the one Wilkinson's character was so fascinated with. Clayton's final action is one of defiance to his company and their client, mirroring Wilkinson's earlier actions, thus having the horses be a sort of symbolic connection between the two characters strengthened by their ultimate moral choices.

I don't think this film was vague at all, and I would say Clayton's character arc, spawned more by his anger over the attempt on his life as opposed to any conscious decision, was more believable and persuasive than most I can think of.

[SirNewt]

My favorite film of the year.

Michael Clayton is a different bird altogether in that it doesn't feature a physical pilgrimage; yet, it was for me the most powerful film of the three in how it dealt with this Search for Meaning. Clayton, the janitor, the chimney sweep, the salt of the earth. At the beginning of the film, he's not exactly looking for Meaning in the same sense as the characters above. He'd be happy with some financial security (his foray into the bar business sucked his savings dry), or even a little extra so he could get back to the card tables. However, as the story develops, Clayton is forced to look at his deepest values as he pieces together the grim facts, confronted with a prophetic madman, a corporation willing to do anything to cover up the damaging facts, and a law firm willing to overlook the facts to get paid. Meaning comes when Clayton makes hard, ethical decisions that go against the grain of what he'd rather do (not get involved).

As opposed to the films mentioned above, perhaps Meaning doesn't come as much for our protagonist as it comes for the viewer watching. The archetypal Michael Clayton makes for a pretty good Everyman. Don't we all in some ways feel like Clayton? Underappreciated? Pressed for funds? Maybe found our niche but had to make concessions to our true sense of vocation? Trying to make sense of some of the rotten things we see happening around us, whether that's at work, at home, on the news, in the paper, etc.? Trying to be a good father and familyman when it's hard to find the time or energy? Walking out of the theater, I felt a rush of exhilaration; I had witnessed a story of redemption, a story that wasn't afraid to ask some tough questions, and do it in such a way that the questions weren't cheap.


If Kurosawafan was horse and buggy about getting to this one, then I'm a fucking Shriner car in first gear, however, I loved this film and I just have to tell you, you're all wrong. :P

Clayton is different at the end of the film but not because of soul searching or a reevaluation of his morals but because he has begun to see the mythological in everyday life. Normally, Clayton is a man of the facts. His job is neither good nor bad. It is necessary and if he did not do it, someone else would. The whimsical books his son reads hold little practicality and seem neither worth his time nor his interest. The ravings of Arthur are a parallel whimsy, not because they threaten the firm but for their sheer impracticality.

The puzzle for Clayton, regarding Arthur, is not how to satisfy the firm. Clayton can always find a solution. His true struggle is reconciling thoughts contrary to his own from a mind that has always been so like his own. He is bemused by Arthur's blatant disregard for reality. It's not until Arthur levels his gaze at Michael and cooly displays a still existent capacity for logic, that Clayton realizes that Arthur has regained his sanity but lost none of his fervor. The very idea that Arthur can be transformed and that his new course, is a product of more than a chemical imbalance unnerves Michael.

Arthur is not a Howard Beale. He's not a microphone giving voice to vapid speeches. Arthur has had no revelation. His current passion is that which likely drove him off his medication. Arthur has suffered for years with the UNorth case. His break from reality has not facilitated a change in belief. It has only caused the exterior to reflect the interior. The fundamental change violently took hold over eight long years.

What took years for Arthur takes only four days for Micheal. The finality of his change is begun the moment he lays eyes on an unimportant image. An image he only saw because he opened a book looking for anything but a book. Later Michael is transfixed by the echo of that image in reality and that regard for something not looked for, for something not needed saves his life.

[Sven]

"I am Shiva, the God of Death!"

Expendable, though at times excellent, picture: 1) every performance, save Wilkinson who barely rises above it, is entirely at the service of the script--neither Clooney or Swinton elevate their characterization above what's written... it's just Clooney doing kind of sad and Swinton doing confused corporate bitch, neither bring in anything surprising or canny 2) the "chase" at the end of the film was pretty ridiculous, because it was neither tense or sensible 3) is film culture really not sick the little guys bringing down evil corporations? 4) Howard's soundtrack was too bland, Gilroy's application of it mostly unfortunate (particularly during introspective moments, where the music adopts that specifically insufferable coating of slow, tinkling piano, accentuated with tacky synth chords) 5) Elswit's cinematography is tip-top 6) I'm always drawn towards films where the character is in search of morality, though I think it's a stretch to say that Clayton wasn't aware of UNorth's guilt in the first place 7) I think the element that works best is this idea posited by Newt of Clayton's attraction to the mythical... the horse bit is very curious and I'm not sure quite what to make of it, although this sounds nice:
"The finality of his change is begun the moment he lays eyes on an unimportant image. An image he only saw because he opened a book looking for anything but a book. Later Michael is transfixed by the echo of that image in reality and that regard for something not looked for, for something not needed saves his life." It's refreshing to see something so ambiguous in a film that otherwise spells everything out.

'Twas okay.

[Sycophant]

Glad you at least kind of liked it, iosos. I bought a copy over the weekend and will probably be rewatching it soon. My memory of it is that it functioned very well as a film that used the little guy-takes-down-big-corporation cliché as a jumping off point into a more subtle picture of morality as opposed to the strict black-and-white of such moral tales. Clayton is complicit in the doings throughout and I don't know that his seeming reformation is anything more than a temporary necessity. While Clooney may not elevate the material, I found the material quite elevated enough.

Will refrain from getting too bogged down in discussion till a re-view, though. My memory for films is kind of shameful.

[Sven]

a film that used the little guy-takes-down-big-corporation cliché as a jumping off point into a more subtle picture of morality as opposed to the strict black-and-white of such moral tales. Clayton is complicit in the doings throughout and I don't know that his seeming reformation is anything more than a temporary necessity.

This seems a bit apologetic, particularly concerning the mythological aspect both present in the film (the horses as signifiers, Shiva references, his son's story parallels) and audience awareness of film formula and conventional morality plays. Obviously, Clayton changes. That's the way it has to be. His debts are paid, he can't go back and work for the firm he just crossed... it's a rebirth. And if there's nothing black and white about villainizing a corporation that is deliberately covering up the accidental murders of hundreds of people, then I don't know what is. As I said, Clayton's ignorance of the company's guilt (which the film is banking on as his moral "out") is more than a tiny stretch.

[Sycophant]

Hmm. You could very well be right. Will report on subsequent viewing.

[Raiders]

1) every performance, save Wilkinson who barely rises above it, is entirely at the service of the script--neither Clooney or Swinton elevate their characterization above what's written... it's just Clooney doing kind of sad and Swinton doing confused corporate bitch, neither bring in anything surprising or canny

Eh, I don't disagree, but I found Swinton's character pretty great even though she's more peripheral than central. I think someone once pointed to an online review that noted how un-sexual her character really is (how often do important women in these kinds of films fail to exude any sexual arousal or femme fatale-ish allure?).


2) the "chase" at the end of the film was pretty ridiculous, because it was neither tense or sensible

It seemed neither good nor bad. It was a chase. Again though, I think it is actually an interesting directorial choice to essentially make the chase uninvolving and rather lifeless. The more important aspect is the coming explosion and Clayton's mythical savior.


3) is film culture really not sick the little guys bringing down evil corporations?

No, not really. Films like this and Demme's superb Manchurian Candidate offer more than just rah-rah "big business is evil." I'm not excited about a corporate take-down, but I am excited about the morality and fractured spirit of the man doing the take-down.


4) Howard's soundtrack was too bland, Gilroy's application of it mostly unfortunate (particularly during introspective moments, where the music adopts that specifically insufferable coating of slow, tinkling piano, accentuated with tacky synth chords)

I agree with this.


5) Elswit's cinematography is tip-top

I agree with this also.


7) I think the element that works best is this idea posited by Newt of Clayton's attraction to the mythical... the horse bit is very curious and I'm not sure quite what to make of it, although this sounds nice: It's refreshing to see something so ambiguous in a film that otherwise spells everything out.

I said above what I think the horse scene is for, however I agree its ambiguity and mythical placement in the film is refreshing and unique for a film of this sort.

[Sven]

It seemed neither good nor bad. It was a chase. Again though, I think it is actually an interesting directorial choice to essentially make the chase uninvolving and rather lifeless. The more important aspect is the coming explosion and Clayton's mythical savior.

Well said on the other accounts, but this does have me a bit befuddled. You say the flatness of the chase was a "choice", but I cannot see how it was anything but failed craft. The bombastic music was there, the tight editing, the tension of the actors... it was trying to be a movie chase, but because we knew the outcome, it came off as silly that we would be so involved.

But, giving it the benefit of your suggestion, how do you reconcile the chase's "intended" lifelessness as interesting?

[Raiders]

Well said on the other accounts, but this does have me a bit befuddled. You say the flatness of the chase was a "choice", but I cannot see how it was anything but failed craft. The bombastic music was there, the tight editing, the tension of the actors... it was trying to be a movie chase, but because we knew the outcome, it came off as silly that we would be so involved.

But, giving it the benefit of your suggestion, how do you reconcile the chase's "intended" lifelessness as interesting?

Well, we already know what happens. We've seen this at the start of the film. As you said before, Clayton's survival seems a matter of fate, chance, or better yet, a mythical symbol appearing out of nowhere. It isn't a car chase in the sense we are on the edge of our seats looking for the conclusion. We know the conclusion. It reads, to me, like an inevitable path where the result is Clayton should die. He's not an action star, he's not a master stunt man. But, we know he doesn't, and in the context of what has happened between our glimpse at the beginning and now the inevitable glimpse again, we see that it isn't luck so much as an intervention. His friend and his son's connection, the book, the mythical story, is what ultimately saves his life. In that instance, he goes from being an obedient, if discombobulated, company man to being a defiant hero, rounding out the mythical elements with an almost fairy-tale ending. But, and this is why I defend Gilroy's decision to end with a long shot of Clooney's weathered face, this is real life, not a fairy-tale. And he now leaves, with no certain future and he isn't happy or celebrating. He is simply leaving.

[Sven]

Your post doesn't talk about how making the chase uninteresting is justified. Sure we know the fate, but as Grouchy mentions, we also know the fate of Pacino in Carlito's Way, yet De Palma was still able to milk a hell of a lot of tension out of the situation.

I think the main difference is that Pacino's character is actively trying to fight his way out of a situation, where Clooney's character is entirely ignorant of his predicament. The nature of the chase in Michael Clayton is such that it convolutes a reason for the hitmen to detonate the bomb without confirmation of Clayton's presence in the car. It's a whole lot of fuss for nothing, and a shallow one-sided investment (it reminded me of the scenes in the Pink Panther series where Clouseau non-chalantly walks through a room and inadvertently dodges so many attempts on his life). A big "so what".

[Raiders]

Your post doesn't talk about how making the chase uninteresting is justified. Sure we know the fate, but as Grouchy mentions, we also know the fate of Pacino in Carlito's Way, yet De Palma was still able to milk a hell of a lot of tension out of the situation.

I think the main difference is that Pacino's character is actively trying to fight his way out of a situation, where Clooney's character is entirely ignorant of his predicament. The nature of the chase in Michael Clayton is such that it convolutes a reason for the hitmen to detonate the bomb without confirmation of Clayton's presence in the car. It's a whole lot of fuss for nothing, and a shallow one-sided investment (it reminded me of the scenes in the Pink Panther series where Clouseau non-chalantly walks through a room and inadvertently dodges so many attempts on his life). A big "so what".

My entire post explains why I don't think the car chase should have been handled like a regular car chase and why I love how the chase followed by the explosion/horses sets up the finale. I really can't say any more than I have.

[Qrazy]

It's a whole lot of fuss for nothing, and a shallow one-sided investment (it reminded me of the scenes in the Pink Panther series where Clouseau non-chalantly walks through a room and inadvertently dodges so many attempts on his life). A big "so what".

That's a great scene and it's not really about the tension, it's about the comedy of his unkillability. Anyway tension is rarely the result of genuinely worrying about the outcome for the character. I never worry in a Hitchcock film, Indiana Jones film, or nearly any action film chase that the main character's will be OK because 99 percent of the time they will be... and furthermore I can still experience the tension while rewatching the film and knowing their fate.

That issue aside I agree with Raiders that the 'chase' scene in MC is not about tension. It's more about seeing what 'the other guy' was doing at this time, their frustration and their botched attempt at murder. One of the major themes of the film is professionalism... notice how good everyone (usually) is at their job... and getting what you want out of life then becomes a protracted game of chess... still as Raiders points out it's the wild card (the kid's book and horses) element, the unexpected move that saves MC's life... removing himself from the obvious 'chess' moves for a moment... breaking out of the professional world for an instant to become invested in emotion, family, etc.

[Sven]

Anyway tension is rarely the result of genuinely worrying about the outcome for the character. I never worry in a Hitchcock film, Indiana Jones film, or nearly any action film chase that the main character's will be OK because 99 percent of the time they will be... and furthermore I can still experience the tension while rewatching the film and knowing their fate.

Exactly why I brought up the chase at the end of Carlito's Way. We know the outcome, it's still tense. It's all a matter of craft and investment, and I think Gilroy botches both: craft, in that he fails to create a coherent geography, and the music is far too loud; investment, in that the ultimate effect of its attempts at tension is for the audience to recall how relaxed Clooney was while driving the car at the beginning of the film. I imagine seeing the film again and thinking during the prologue about the two hitmen chasing him and fumbling about, yelling, while Howard's music is going DAH DAH DUM DUM!!! It's not a very cohesive or meaningful effect.

Though after a few-hour separation from the movie, I can kind of see where both of you are coming from. It's a bit of a stretch for me to consider the hitman plot as an echo of the film's main thematic thrusts, although I dig the idea of botched professionalism. However, I think the point would've been stronger had I actually FELT the botched element. I suppose it's a bit meta: Gilroy botches his professionalism with an ineffective thrill sequence.

[Qrazy]

Exactly why I brought up the chase at the end of Carlito's Way. We know the outcome, it's still tense. It's all a matter of craft and investment, and I think Gilroy botches both: craft, in that he fails to create a coherent geography, and the music is far too loud; investment, in that the ultimate effect of its attempts at tension is for the audience to recall how relaxed Clooney was while driving the car at the beginning of the film. I imagine seeing the film again and thinking during the prologue about the two hitmen chasing him and fumbling about, yelling, while Howard's music is going DAH DAH DUM DUM!!! It's not a very cohesive or meaningful effect.

Though after a few-hour separation from the movie, I can kind of see where both of you are coming from. It's a bit of a stretch for me to consider the hitman plot as an echo of the film's main thematic thrusts, although I dig the idea of botched professionalism. However, I think the point would've been stronger had I actually FELT the botched element. I suppose it's a bit meta: Gilroy botches his professionalism with an ineffective thrill sequence.

Except you're still not accepting our basic premise that the sequence is not primarily about building tension. You're still judging it in relation to it's tension or lack of tension and by doing so are implicitly assuming the intentions of the filmmaker (something which based on other conversations of ours I would assume you feel is a big no-no)... Personally I feel intentions can and often must be extrapolated or at least approximations of them in order to analyze a work... pure behaviourism has been on it's way out for about 50 years now... and for the reasons Raiders and I have given I feel the intention is not primarily tension building and therefore the scene should not be judged in relation to that intension... but either way though you're viewing the sequence through a lens (intention of tension) which you elsewhere have decried (racism/sexism conversation).

[Sven]

Except you're still not accepting our basic premise that the sequence is not primarily about building tension. You're still judging it in relation to it's tension or lack of tension and by doing so are implicitly assuming the intentions of the filmmaker (something which based on other conversations of ours I would assume you feel is a big no-no)... Personally I feel intentions can and often must be extrapolated or at least approximations of them in order to analyze a work... pure behaviourism has been on it's way out for about 50 years now... and for the reasons Raiders and I have given I feel the intention is not primarily tension building and therefore the scene should not be judged in relation to that intension... but either way though you're viewing the sequence through a lens (intention of tension) which you elsewhere have decried (racism/sexism conversation).

But there is a difference between ideology and technique, and tension is pure technique. It's like when a director attempts a steadicam shot and it's a bit wobbly and you cannot discern a reason for it to be wobbly, so you assume that it's merely a technical defect. Such is the case with this sequence--I cannot see truth in the argument that it is not intended for tension, because it has all the trappings of a sequence that SHOULD be tense, but is not due to what I perceive are defects in the filmmaker's talent. Your reading of it--that it's about the hitmen's professionalism--does not explain the techniques employed by Gilroy: those of a decidedly tension building intention (close-ups, quick cuts, loud music, cross cutting, yelling, squealing tires, yanked steering wheels, etc.). It's only fair to criticize it for failing to quicken the pulse.

[Qrazy]

But there is a difference between ideology and technique, and tension is pure technique. It's like when a director attempts a steadicam shot and it's a bit wobbly and you cannot discern a reason for it to be wobbly, so you assume that it's merely a technical defect. Such is the case with this sequence--I cannot see truth in the argument that it is not intended for tension, because it has all the trappings of a sequence that SHOULD be tense, but is not due to what I perceive are defects in the filmmaker's talent. Your reading of it--that it's about the hitmen's professionalism--does not explain the techniques employed by Gilroy: those of a decidedly tension building intention (close-ups, quick cuts, loud music, cross cutting, yelling, squealing tires, yanked steering wheels, etc.). It's only fair to criticize it for failing to quicken the pulse.

Aside from the reasons we've already provided the primary reason is that nothing in the film suggests that Gilroy is an idiot... he knows he's already shown us the outcome, so it stands to reason that he also knows that the tension of the scene has already been effectively undercut. He is therefore not playing the scene for the tension of outcome but only for the psychological tension/frustration of the hitmen and the form executes their psychological tension just fine.

[Sven]

Aside from the reasons we've already provided the primary reason is that nothing in the film suggests that Gilroy is an idiot...

Not entirely true, but that's a different argument.


he knows he's already shown us the outcome, so it stands to reason that he also knows that the tension of the scene has already been effectively undercut. He is therefore not playing the scene for the tension of outcome but only for the psychological tension/frustration of the hitmen and the form executes their psychological tension just fine.

I think deflecting the audience's affections onto the hitmen is kind of a stupid move at that juncture. This isn't like Psycho, here... it's not like the hitmen are at all integral to any thematic or narrative end. They are characterless plot constructions. To maneuver the consequence of such a pivotal moment (some might even say "climax") away from Clayton and onto two ciphers is just, well... bad storytelling.

[Sven]

Oh, and if it's all the same, Q-dog, I'd rather not get into a long discussion about this one. I'm a little beat after our last few. I'll give you the last word. Unless I feel I REALLY need to respond, which, given my personality, I probably will.

[Qrazy]

Not entirely true, but that's a different argument.



I think deflecting the audience's affections onto the hitmen is kind of a stupid move at that juncture. This isn't like Psycho, here... it's not like the hitmen are at all integral to any thematic or narrative end. They are characterless plot constructions. To maneuver the consequence of such a pivotal moment (some might even say "climax") away from Clayton and onto two ciphers is just, well... bad storytelling.

I don't think they are characterless plot constructions though. This isn't a drastic shift in the storytelling because they're not the faceless throwaway baddies of an action film. They have quite a bit of screen-time that we spend primarily with them and we come to know their 'business' just as we come to know Clayton's business. Most of that 'chase' scene takes place from their perspective and that's what I'm trying to get it... the point of the scene is to show what the 'other side' was doing at the time... whereas the opening of the film focused solely on Clayton. We witness their frustration, etc... what they're experiencing... they can't botch this or they know they're in for trouble and they're right because Clayton delivers that trouble. These are all just people, professionals... in this case murderers perhaps, but still people, with a vested interest in a certain outcome... so their concerns are as real as anyone else's... Swinton's, Pollack's, Wilkinson's etc.

To clarify, I'm not in love with the film by any stretch but I just don't see that there's anything spectacularly wrong with the car scene.

[Qrazy]

Oh, and if it's all the same, Q-dog, I'd rather not get into a long discussion about this one. I'm a little beat after our last few. I'll give you the last word. Unless I feel I REALLY need to respond, which, given my personality, I probably will.

Yeah it was mighty difficult for me not to respond in the other thread. I'm still fighting the urge to do so.

[Sven]

Yeah it was mighty difficult for me not to respond in the other thread. I'm still fighting the urge to do so.

Pleeeeaaase don't. :)

[SirNewt]

Great argument guys, a lot of fun to read. I'm pretty sure at this point that this was my favorite movie from last year. It's good to see the thread alive.

[Dillard]

A difference of opinion on James Newton Howard's score given by Ted Pigeon with a post (http://tedpigeon.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-cinema-of-music.html) called "On the Cinema of Music." He is particularly taken with the way Howard combines sound and image in the climactic final sequence of the movie. Before that, he finds the score "hardly noticeable," which is exactly the effect Howard is going for (as described in the quotes that precede the post).

I agree with Pigeon: I never found the music to be bombastic. It was a very fluid score, and combined with the visuals to create tone poems of certain scenes (Clayton's encounter with the horses, and the taxi ride that cues the credits). The score has an ethereal quality that complements the aforementioned mythical element as well.

[Qrazy]

It exists as an installation in the corporate-crimes genre: Parallax View and All the President's Men are the obvious precursors. Nuanced, maybe, but unique? A film as formulaic as Michael Clayton, that's hard to apply.

No offense iosis but I'd prefer to hear ledfloyd's response since I already know your outlook on the film pretty thoroughly... as we've discussed our disparate views on the film to death already but...

Unique (not brilliant of course) in execution, which is the primary way stories in this day and age ever really are unique anyway... the approach towards dialogue in this is completely different than to say All the President's Men (haven't seen Parallax View), Three Days of the Condor and other similar titles. It reminded me vaguely of films like Syriana and The Insider given it's blue swept, cold color, semi-gritty visual technique as well as a similar means of generating tension and paranoia as those two films... but it's also quite different because it focuses primarily on the litigators rather than the crime (vis. Erin Brokovich, A Civil Action)... and it's interested in the cold, clinical mechanics of the system on a broad level as well as in the singular perversions of the system for profit motive. Once again I come across as reaping praise on a film I'm only just positive about... the horse stuff is too forced a metaphor, the time shift is ok but a big generic these days... I suppose I agree with your formulaic criticism but I feel a film can be unique in it's approach to the narrative (within the genre) while still following a formula ('good guys' win, protag realizes he needs to spend more time with his son, etc).

[transmogrifier]

I'm surprised that this film gets as much of a pass here as it does, because it has pretty big problems in terms of the narrative - there is no need to play with time, because there is more power to be gained from following a character going through a reawakening along side him/her, rather than waiting for that character to catch up with what we already know. It puts the audience into a position of moral superiority that I think works against the ultimate themes of the film. We are given a convenient out, when - especially if you have someone as naturally charasmatic as Clooney as the lead, the movie could intitially have played him as a good guy, an upright fixer, and then pulled the rug out from both of us.

Also, it has almost zero thrills, and individual scenes barely hang together - it's very hard to see some sort of guiding artistic force behind the film; instead, it seems as if the film has been rescued by editing.

[Qrazy]

I'm surprised that this film gets as much of a pass here as it does, because it has pretty big problems in terms of the narrative - there is no need to play with time, because there is more power to be gained from following a character going through a reawakening along side him/her, rather than waiting for that character to catch up with what we already know. It puts the audience into a position of moral superiority that I think works against the ultimate themes of the film. We are given a convenient out, when - especially if you have someone as naturally charasmatic as Clooney as the lead, the movie could intitially have played him as a good guy, an upright fixer, and then pulled the rug out from both of us.

Also, it has almost zero thrills, and individual scenes barely hang together - it's very hard to see some sort of guiding artistic force behind the film; instead, it seems as if the film has been rescued by editing.

Although I agree with you that the film has problems I don't buy that we're in a position of moral superiority. Frankly I think you just hate all non-linear films. ;)

[transmogrifier]

Although I agree with you that the film has problems I don't buy that we're in a position of moral superiority. Frankly I think you just hate all non-linear films. ;)

Nah.

Memento is pretty clever, and actually serves the premise.

The Korean movie Failan makes excellent use of extended flashbacks, paralleling two stories and finding resonance between them.

Slaughterhouse-5, for obvious reasons.

For some reason, I always liked the structure of Out of Sight, though I don't know why, because it doesn't really have a point. That old emotional accumulation, I guess.

I can't think of others off the top of my head.

[Qrazy]

Nah.

Memento is pretty clever, and actually serves the premise.

The Korean movie Failan makes excellent use of extended flashbacks, paralleling two stories and finding resonance between them.

Slaughterhouse-5, for obvious reasons.

For some reason, I always liked the structure of Out of Sight, though I don't know why, because it doesn't really have a point. That old emotional accumulation, I guess.

I can't think of others off the top of my head.

Ah OK well I said that because of the conversation we just had in Y Tu Film where you said you don't like those kind of films (that was you right?)... I agree with you about Memento... haven't seen Failan... don't like Slaughterhouse-Five for a variety of reasons but yeah have no problem with the time shifts there either... Out of Sight, Meh. I used to think I liked Soderbergh quite a bit but the more I dig into his filmography the less I do.

[transmogrifier]

Out of Sight is easily his best film, followed by The Limey.

[Qrazy]

Out of Sight is easily his best film, followed by The Limey.

Ehh... here's how I'd rank.

1. Traffic (2000) - I dunno though I saw this when I was young so could drop precipitously with a re-watch.
2. Sex, Lies, and Videotape (1989)
3. Schizopolis (1996)
4. The Limey (1999)
5. Ocean's Eleven (2001)
6. King of the Hill (1993)
7. Out of Sight (1998)
8. Kafka (1991)
9. Erin Brockovich (2000)
10. Ocean's Twelve (2004)

[Teecee]

Out of Sight is easily his best film, followed by The Limey.

Shoot. Score.

[Qrazy]

Shoot. Score.

I first watched The Limey when I was really drunk and loved it's tone (music w/ editing style), then I reached watched it sober and was pretty underwhelmed. The style of editing started to grate on me (although I still really like the music) and the characters (except for The Limey himself) just didn't hold up.

[Teecee]

I first watched The Limey when I was really drunk and loved it's tone (music w/ editing style), then I reached watched it sober and was pretty underwhelmed. The style of editing started to grate on me (although I still really like the music) and the characters (except for The Limey himself) just didn't hold up.

I've only seen it once and rather long ago, but I remember a tight story, elegant-gritty (if that makes sense) filmmaking, and a superb performance by Terrence Stamp. Not a "major" film, but one that stuck with me.

[Qrazy]

I've only seen it once and rather long ago, but I remember a tight story, elegant-gritty (if that makes sense) filmmaking, and a superb performance by Terrence Stamp. Not a "major" film, but one that stuck with me.

Stamp is always great fo shiz... ever seen Toby Dammit (Fellini)? Fantastic (performance and film).

[ledfloyd]

just came in here. didn't realize the batphone rang.

it's been a couple weeks since i watched this and it wasn't very memorable so bear with me. but i was just bored most of the time. i think transmog might be onto something with the non-linear structure leaving us to wait while the characters catch up.

it didn't seem significantly different from the recent batch of political thrillers. which is why i had called it derivative.

i really wanted to like it, cause i love clooney. the majority of the movie just seemed lifeless. cold and clinical are words you used to describe it and i agree, though negatively. i was just sitting around waiting for something to happen. when it did, it was sublime. the last 15 minutes or so is great. and the final scene with swinton and clooney is amazing. clooney reminded me of bogart there, at the end of a film noir. it's a great scene, however, i don't think it's worth plodding through the previous hour and 40 minutes or so for. the cinematography is good, but there's nothing behind the pretty images.