Michael Clayton (George Clooney) is a “fixer” for a prestigious New York law firm; whenever a seemingly insurmountable obstacle arises, Clayton is called in to use his singular skills to make it go away. But when Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), one of the firm’s partners and a manic depressive who has unexpectedly gone off his meds, jeopardizes the outcome of a multibillion-dollar case, Clayton finds himself faced with a situation even he may not be able to contain.

CRITIQUE

Does anyone else find it odd that two of 2007’s best films were throwbacks to the type of thrillers Hollywood delivered on a regular basis back in the 1970s? Spring brought David Fincher’s Zodiac, which took its cue from such procedural films as All the President’s Men, while Fall brought Tony Gilroy’s Michael Clayton, which is reminiscent in tone and execution of such paranoid masterpieces as The Conversation. Once again the people who complain that they don’t make ‘em like they used to have been proven wrong; sometimes someone does perform that very act, and sometimes they get it exactly right. Michael Clayton is one of those cases.

Gilroy, who parleyed his cache from writing/co-writing all three of the recent Bourne movies into making his directorial debut here, has crafted a smart, believable, character-driven thriller, one that depends on emotional and psychological violence more than it does physical brutality. It’s peopled with individuals who have lost sight of their humanity and are concerned only with financial and professional wellbeing. They’re the logical product of roughly the last twenty-five years oh human history, not cartoonish psychopaths or unstoppable killing machines, which makes them all the more frightening and odious.

The story isn’t driven by a contrived plot that’s constructed of ludicrous twist upon ludicrous twist, but grows organically out of the decisions made by the characters. The film feels lived-in, with a layered, literate quality that makes it analogous to a very good, absorbing novel (the film plays like the best adaption of a Scott Turow novel Turow never wrote).

I’m not sure if it came naturally or if Gilroy has studied the directors with whom he’s worked over the past sixteen years (his first produced screenplay was The Cutting Edge, a fact I still can’t quite wrap my head around), but this in no way looks or feels like the work of a first-time director. There are no excessive, unnecessary stylistics on display, but the visuals also don’t fall into the point-and-shoot trap so many writers-turned-director can’t seem to avoid (quick--try to think of a memorable shot devised by David Mamet).

Gilroy’s framing and movements exhibit the same sort of naturalistic, unadorned quality exhibited in the films to which his work hearkens back (Sidney Lumet at his best springs to mind). Technical sheen is also provided by the fluid editing of John Gilroy (the director’s brother), and the expert cinematography of Robert Elswit, who provides Clayton’s professional world with a cold slickness that beautifully contrasts with the warm earth tones of his troubled personal life.

As complex and involved as it can be at times, Michael Clayton is, I think, essentially a two-character drama. On one end is Clayton himself, on the other is Karen Crowder, the head legal liaison for the agricultural conglomerate Clayton’s firm has been hired to defend. Portrayed by Tilda Swinton (who, like Clooney and Wilkinson, earned a much-deserved Oscar nomination), Crowder performs a similar function to Clayton, but unlike him, she’s totally shed her humanity, placing no value whatsoever on human life. (It’s no coincidence that nothing of her personal life is shown.)

What ultimately makes the film so absorbing is the conflict and interplay between Clayton (who possesses the capacity for change) and Crowder (who doesn’t). The final exchange between them is astounding in its force and energy; coupled with the film’s final scene, it provided a resolution that for me was easily the most satisfying of the cinematic year.            

Some people have criticized Gilroy for the film’s pacing, but I don’t understand what the problem is. The film is by no means slow; it doesn’t blaze along, but it’s by no means as slow as say, Barry Lyndon or The English Patient. I wouldn’t even say the pacing is deliberate, unless by that word you mean it proceeds at a speed that allows the plot to unfold as it should, with each piece of new information and every turn coming naturally. Pacing should fit the storytelling (any director worth his/her salt will tell you the pacing should be inherent in the script), and here it fits like a glove.

THE VIDEO

On the whole the 2.40:1/1080p transfer is very pleasing, but it does exhibit a few minor flaws. Colors in both extremes of the cinematography are reproduced very well, and overall the sense of depth in the image is above average. But there are moments when black levels and shadow detail suffer (most noticeably when Clayton breaks into Edens’s loft), and objects dominated by horizontal lines (air conditioning vents, striped ties) often break up and jitter; some mild edge enhancement is also noticeable.

THE AUDIO

The movie’s fireworks are largely verbal (although there is one explosion), so the Dolby Digital 5.1 track is primarily front-heavy. The surrounds are only occasionally used to open up the score or provide a bit of ambiance. Dialogue always exhibits a natural quality, remaining perfectly intelligible throughout. Low end activity is limited to the score and that singular explosion, which really thunders when it occurs. French and Spanish Dolby Digital 5.1 tracks are also included. English, French, and Spanish subtitles are available.

THE EXTRAS

The commentary by writer/director Tony Gilroy and editor John Gilroy is a bit of a bore. Some of John’s comments regarding the challenges of creating a cohesive whole from a nonlinear setup are interesting, but Tony falls into the neophyte trap of gushing about the cast and expressing his disbelief over being given a chance to direct.

Three deleted scenes (5 minutes) are also included. Two provide ultimately unnecessary character moments, while the third establishes a minor subplot that was dropped from the finished film.

FINAL THOUGHT