MIchael Clayton

After a two-month hiatus, I'm back. For all two of you who read this, I'm sure that will give you much needed solace as you seek slumber. So, on to this post's topic - Michael Clayton.

First, I must disclose that I have never been a big fan of Clooney's, mostly because I submit that he only plays himself in movies. But at least he's believable. However, this is clearly his best role yet. Finally, after 20+ years, he has learned that overacting isn't always the answer. He does more solid acting with subtle facial expressions and sullen comportment in this movie than in all three Ocean's movies combined.

Now, on to the story - the meat of the movie. It is worth mentioning though, before we get into the fleshy part of the movie, that Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton are both incredible in this movie. Also, I will not waste your time summarizing. That's what IMDB is for. But here is a trailer to give you the gist:




Ok, so, Clooney is broke, a compulsive gambler, an amoral "fixer" in a high-powered law firm. Wilkinson's character, Arthur, has a mental breakdown while working on the firm's most lucrative case...but it really isn't a breakdown, it's a crisis of conscience. Arthur learns of the dastardly deeds (and no, I don't mean to sound like the narrator of the Rocky & Bullwinkle cartoon) and he won't whore himself out on devil's errands any longer. Enter Michael Clayton. And thus ensues the movie.

This is a very good movie. Almost great. There are some key problems here, and thankfully you have me, Wunder Word, the idiot savant of storytelling, to weed through it all for you.

First, Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, starts off the movie with a scene leading to the attempt on Clayton's life (the car explosion in the trailer) then back tracks four days. It is gimmicky and completely alters the story arc. It is 10 minutes that should have been spent on establishing Arthur and Clayton's relationship. We don't get a true sense of what is really between these two, only what comes out of Clayton's mouth, so it is all expository. And not even good exposition. There is no story, for example, that Clayton tells about Arthur saving his life, mentoring him, being a god-father to his kid. It is matter-of-fact. And Clayton's relationship with his loser brother is a peripheral story that fractures the natural progression of the story when the brother is used as some sort of catalyst for Clayton to finally reach out to his son.

If Clayton's relationship with Arthur had been established and we could have felt it, it would have allowed us to fully engage in Clayton's struggle. Also, more time with his son, thus leading to his desire to do right by Arthur would have made Clayton's character arc so much more powerful. As it is now, is just too precipitous. A man who has spent a lifetime skirting responsibility, blurring moral lines in the name of money, doesn't just become moral. The dots are there, so we can connect them. But it is not nearly as powerful, engrossing and complete as it could have been.

But it was at least worth the $10.