Michael Clayton – 2007
This was a good movie, but it wasn’t as good as it thinks it was. What I mean by that is that it was a suspense thriller that tried to portray itself as a deep and hard-hitting drama. But really, it was just an average suspense thriller. It was alright, but I didn’t see what put it above any other movie of its genre. What was it about Michael Clayton that got it nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards when other films like 1993’s The Firm or The Pelican Brief, also from 1993, were not? In my mind there was nothing about this film that warranted the nomination.
But that’s not to say it was a bad movie. It was just an average example of a corporate drama. There was no real suspense, no daring plot twists, no dangerous action, and no bold emotional content. The acting was competent, but the story just wasn’t very deep or intense.
George Clooney played the title character of Michael Clayton. He is a corporate janitor, a man who does what he has to in order to keep the clients of a prestigious law firm happy and out of trouble. When an idiot client jeopardizes a case by breaking the law or hitting someone with his car, Michael swoops in and uses his extensive knowledge of how the criminal justice system works to keep the client out of jail. Right near the beginning of the film, we see him counseling such a client. As he leaves, he is visibly upset. Then, he stops the car and gets out to look at some grazing horses. As he is looking at the animals, his car blows up.
Cut to four months earlier. Clayton is called for a case. Apparently, one of his co-workers went off the deep end. Arthur Edens, played by Tom Wilkinson, lost his marbles during a deposition with U-North, an agricultural products conglomerate. For some reason, Arthur stripped naked during the deposition and ran through the streets. Michael bails him out of jail and does his best to find out what is going on.
You see, Arthur knows that U-North makes a product that is extremely toxic, causing major, and sometimes lethal health problems in customers. Arthur has been giving legal aid to U-North for six years, and has proof of the product’s poisonous nature. Arthur begins to make plans to go public with what he knows. But the U-North General Council, Karen Crowder, played by Tilda Swinton, is an evil woman. To protect U-North, she hires hitmen to murder Arthur, and eventually Michael Clayton as he begins to learn why Arthur had his episode.
Add to that the fact that the character of Michael Clayton is established as having a history of gambling addiction, and is currently in debt to a loan-shark for eighty thousand dollars. However, the debt is not because of gambling, but because of a legitimate business deal turned bad because of his brother’s drug problem.
And that’s it. As usual, Wilkinson did a good job. I also liked Swinton in her role as the bad guy. Clooney was also competent. The whole cast did just fine, but something was lacking. I’m having trouble putting my finger on exactly what is was, but for me, there just wasn’t enough intensity. Maybe it was the script, the dialogue, or the directing. I’m not exactly sure.
And the ending felt a little unbelievable. So Clayton, having survived the hit, surprises Karen Crowder as she is about to agreeably settle the class action law suit that the murdered Arthur was attempting to derail. He has the incriminating report that says that she and U-North knew all about the lethally toxic nature of their product. He confronts Crowder outside the meeting room and threatens to expose her, also letting her know that he is aware of the part she played in Arthur’s death and the attempt on his own life. He badgers her into offering him $10 million for his silence. But he turns the tables on her and pulls a live cell phone out of his coat pocket. Police suddenly arrive to arrest her.
Maybe I don’t know much about how the criminal justice system works, but unless the conversation was recorded through the cell phone, couldn’t the conversation be denied? And even if it was recorded, is that the kind of evidence that would hold up in a court of law? And is the fact that Crowder allowed herself to be pressured into paying the $10 million as good as an admission of her guilt? Maybe it was all realistic, but it didn’t feel like it. I just don’t know.
Now, all that being said, I liked that even though the first half of the film was a little confusing, by the end, all the pieces seemed to fit into place. There was an intelligence about the drama that was also appealing. All in all, Michael Clayton was a good enough movie. I just don’t understand why everyone seems to think it was better than I do.