Life > October 18, 2007

By Peter Youngblood | Staff writer

This fall, Hollywood is breaking away the mega-blockbusters of the summer in a display of political angst. Upcoming thrillers like Lions for Lambs and Rendition are tackling key issues such as terrorism and war.

However, one of the first social commentaries of the season is the film Michael Clayton, a dark legal thriller frightening in its inhumanity.

George Clooney is Michael Clayton, a former litigator who now works as a “fixer” for a prestigious New York City law firm.

Even though he is a pro at solving other people’s legal problems, he cannot fix his own life, plagued by a divorce and a failed business venture that has left him in debt.

When one of his firm’s best attorneys, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson, from Batman Begins), has a mental breakdown during a high-profile case, Clayton’s boss (Sydney Pollack) sends him in on a damage control mission that could make or break his career.

More complications arise when Edens reveals irrefutable evidence that their corporate client has been selling highly-carcinogenic fertilizer. Edens, who has become enraptured with one of the young victims, decides to secretly advise the plaintiffs.

On the other side is the chief counsel for the company, Karen Crowder (Tilda Swinton from The Chronicles of Narnia) who is willing to do anything to keep their secret locked up. Suddenly Clayton is caught in the middle of something he cannot fix.

The premise, that of a corrupt corporation trying to hide the truth, is not particularly original, but the execution and feel of this film is very different from many other legal thrillers.

Other than being extremely dark in both theme and tone, the film’s characterizations are both incredibly poignant and incredibly alienating. The motives of all of the players are properly analyzed through a sympathetic narrative structure, but their personality and behavior repels any sympathy from the audience. The antihero Clayton, while hard-pressed by the collapsing walls of his life, is a Jack Bauer of an attorney, coldly and even selfishly determined to do his job.

Even Edens, the film’s reformed “hero,” is driven by a passion that is hidden behind a mix of childish madness and intellectual ranting, as if having a heart actually drives him insane after so many years of playing devil’s advocate.

Throughout the film, Clayton and Edens refer to themselves as “janitors,” called in to clean up the foul mess that others leave behind. Their dark characterizations perfectly reflect the awful sub-human toll that their careers take on them.

Even though Clayton remains a static and unsympathetic character for most of the film, there are hints of passion that redeem the audience’s interest in him, especially toward the end.

And then there is his son, Henry — a last vestige of his former humanity. Henry is the only person toward whom Clayton shows affection and the boy’s fascination with magic and fantasy provides a stark contrast with the cold, legal realm.

A key motif is a red book called Realm and Conquest, which Henry tries to get his dad to read.

Supposedly, this book inspires Edens in his crusade against his former clients, but despite its obvious symbolism, the book’s role in the narrative is never thoroughly explained.

Unfortunately, some of the characters fail to be interesting, especially the main antagonists. In one scene between Crowder and some hired thugs, a conversation about murder is punctuated by awkward silences and hesitancy — a tactic I believe first-time director Tony Gilroy had meant to portray them in a more realistically human manner as opposed to the typical calculating scum one sees in similar films.

However, while Crowder’s reservations toward murder are explored in a few scenes, she and her cohorts come across as more incompetent than conflicted.

Ironically, the unsympathetic characters and even the inept villainy of the film add to the realism, even if the latter hurts its watch-ability. There is no added joy or comic relief in this film, but rather only dark business as usual.

I am sure this film is trying to say something, even if I am not sure what. On the surface it is a call against the humanistic facade of corporate America, but I think what it really does is reveal the facade of humanity in general. Maybe it meant to show how people are sometimes simply not human at all.