Theatrical Review of Michael Clayton

---

Tools:
Send to a friend »

---

"Michael Clayton" is one of the rare movies from Hollywood which requires the audience to think about the action on screen, connect all the story´s dots and draw their own conclusion from the available information. Central to this process is a confrontation between George Clooney´s title character and Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton) at the end of the film. What, exactly, is Clayton´s role in the preceding events? How much was he in on? And why is the story need so ambiguous as to confuse the viewer long after the final credit has left the screen?

Michael Clayton is a fixer, a man who is called in when a situation requires a below-the-board solution t his law firm. When the lead litigator on the Unorth case--a chemical company accused of not following safety protocols--goes off the rails, Clayton is assigned to cleaning up the mess. What he finds is a respected attorney compiling evidence of Unorth´s guilt and a winding conspiracy he never imagined.

Too many films these days connect the dots for the audience by the end of the picture by using a quick montage or another similarly silly technique. Sometimes, a wrap up is even thrown in for the appearance of being a complex drama when, in reality, we´ve been following along just fine the entire time. "Michael Clayton" is a breed of movie which asks us to keep up with the story and characters, the twists and turns, even the subplots that don´t mean anything in the end. Take, for example, Clayton´s family conundrums. One brother is a cop, another is a deadbeat who owes Clayton large sums of money for a bankrupt bar . . . none of which means anything in the grand scheme of things.

That is the pseudo-brilliance of "Michael Clayton": it strays from the main story, yet never loses sight of Unorth. Every seemingly extraneous storyline feeds into developing Clayton´s character. He´s morally ambiguous, loyal, good at what he does…and a sucker. Clayton differs from other lawyers in that he trusts too much, especially in the case of his friend and fellow litigator Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson). The expectation is that the lawyer works for the client and doesn´t have a moral compass to guide their decisions.

And that´s where the problem comes in. Edens does have compassion in his heart. After working for years without a break on the case, he comes around to understanding Unorth is wrong. Plain wrong. Which is where all the problems enter into the story. Edens has information, Unorth (and Crowder) find out about it. Clayton is called in . . . and it spirals out of control.

"Michael Clayton" is a bleak movie, covered in gray and never black or white. It´s never upbeat or downbeat; director/writer Tony Gilroy maintains an even tone throughout despite the emotions the material elicits. We know the company is at fault, as do the characters, but at the same time, everyone involved knows there is a job to do. A job on which an entire law firm hinges. These lawyers are required to believe in their client; all they have to do is defend them. Lie, if you will.

Even down to the verbal finale between Clayton and Crowder (a scene which shows Clooney at perhaps his best in the entire film), the lies never stop coming. So we´re left to wonder who to believe? Do we believe the events we´ve seen, with no suggestion anything unseemly is happening we don´t know about? Or do we believe the finale, telling us how the entire movie went down without so much as montage back up? Ultimately, I don´t think it matters much. We have hints to both sides, that Crowder was intimately involved with the entire deal (notice her short scenes in the bathroom) and Clayton was a liar (the context of the conversation). All we do know is what we see at the end of the film: police. Enough said.

I said earlier "Michael Clayton" is a rare movie nowadays and it´s true. Nothing about the production--aside from the cast--is flashy. (Clooney, Wilkinson and Swinton are joined by Sidney Pollack as Clayton´s boss.) There is one explosion--seen twice--no shootout or chase scene. No sex. Just the story told by competent people. In it´s bid to paint the Clayton character as half slime ball/half angel, the script reminds the audience time and again people aren´t who we think they are.

We want ease because simple, sugar films have been fed to us for years, not requiring us to think or deduce but to simply watch. All will be explained in a nice three minute sequence where the pieces come together like an episode of "Murder, She Wrote." Colonel Mustard with the pipe in the Carriage House. "Michael Clayton" isn´t that movie. It is a who done it in some aspects. We know who done it and, really, why. Or so we think. It´s that ending which sticks in the craw. With it, we can´t be totally sure of anything, another reason "Michael Clayton" excels. We´re supposed to draw our own conclusions and think about the film long after it´s been "explained."

I keep coming back to the finale, without giving too much away. There´s a wealth of information given to the audience, one part of which we should see coming from a million miles away. Somehow, we don´t. The exchange between Clooney and Swinton is so engaging, so engrossing we are intently focused on their characters, absorbing the performances and words, not bothering to connect the dots while we´re in the theater. It´s after the strong and silent Clooney performance . . . the unhinged yet sane Wilkinson turn…the unflattering but resolved Swinton . . . we try to make sense of it all. In a way, we´re like the characters in the film: running to catch up with a speeding train, hoping to understand what is going on.

"Michael Clayton" is a slow film, so much so it nearly lulls you into a state of "been there, done that." We´ve see this movie play out as "Erin Brokovich" or even "A Civil Action." Yet the images on screen are still mesmerizing. Because of the ambiguous ending, I can´t wholeheartedly recommend the film, but I can come close. It´s an unassuming, unpretentious 7 out of 10 filled with performances some will label Oscar worthy and a story which demands a repeat viewing just to keep the pieces straight.

---

---