Tuesday, March 11, 2008

George of the Legal Jungle (****1/2)

Now this is a real movie - so compelling I forgot to blink, except once or twice every half hour or so. It's nothing less than what I would expect from a man who wrote the screenplay for The Bourne Ultimatum, and Tony Gilroy did nothing to disappoint me with Michael Clayton.

The film focuses on Michael Clayton (Clooney), the "fixer" at a prestigious New York law firm, who has, as his boss puts it, "carved a niche" for himself as the person who helps clients with difficult or complicated situations. How he does this is irrelevant, and the film doesn't spend time showing us how good Clayton is at his job. In fact, much of what is told to us about Clayton is mentioned in passing, for all of about thirty seconds.

The firm represents an agricultural company called U-North, which has been harboring a rather ugly secret that would guarantee their loss in a class-action lawsuit brought against it by a family of farmers in Milwaukee. Unfortunately for U-North, Arthur Edens (Tom Wilkinson), one of the key lawyers in the case, stumbles upon the incriminating documents and has an epiphany at the same time - his practice and his life have both been a farce and he wants to make amends. His methods however, are not very subtle or sly, and he becomes an easy target for U-North's Karen Crowder, U-North's very own "fixer," who must prevent the truth from being revealed at any cost.

As he follows Edens to prevent him from causing damage to the firm at first, and to uncover the truth later on, Clayton contends with his personal battles along the way. It becomes quite apparent that the niche Clayton has carved for himself may be one he can't really get out of - he has been at the firm for seventeen years, with no promotion and no chance of becoming a partner. To make things worse, he has lost his savings on investing in an unsuccessful restaurant partnership with his brother, as a result of which, he owes the New York mafia big money, and his relationship with his young son is faltering. But his troubles take a backseat with Edens' breakdown and the series of events that follow.

Tony Gilroy could not have chosen better - with George Clooney at the helm, the film sucks you in with quiet force, as a true thriller should. Tom Wilkinson's grab-you-by-the-collar-and-shake-you dialogues lay the foundation for the film. Austin Williams plays Clayton's son, whose favorite mythical tale of collective consciousness and common good is a work of art that is as ingenious as it is disturbing, and goads Edens and Clayton on in their quest for truth. Tilda Swinton as Karen Crowder undergoes a visible struggle as she crosses boundary upon boundary to cover up U-North's tracks. With such a palette of characters to paint the plot with, it's no wonder the film got an Oscar nod.

As for any contrast between Michael Clayton and No Country for Old Men, it is as stark as tepid and boiling water - because, at the end of the day, the tremendous satisfaction you get when you know that justice has been done is pretty unbeatable.

No Country for Real Movies (**1/2)


Okay, I took film studies classes throughout the seven years I spent in college, so I sat down and thought about what I might have said if say, Professor Bhalla had asked me for my opinion of No Country for Old Men. I'll be honest - I might have thought the movie is garbage, and not worth the money I spent on it, but I would have kept film-making techniques in mind and said a thing or two about moral privation or something like that....

That was a long time ago. Now, however, I think I have joined the ranks of the non-ivory tower residents who just went "Huh?" or "It's over?" or "What the hey-ull?" as the man with the thick Southern accent seated next to me said when the end credits started to roll.

The movie is apparently about how evil has gotten more complicated and tougher to deal with since Tommy Lee Jones' character, an old sheriff looking to retire, last experienced it. Javier Bardem's character, Anton Chigurh, is supposed to be the new face of this magnified evil, shooting pretty much anyone who happens to be in his way, just because he can - and because he has a cool silencing device attached to the nozzle of his gun, with which he also blows locks off doors.

Unfortunately for Llewelyn Moss (played by Josh Brolin), who stumbles upon a briefcase full of cash at the scene of a drug deal gone really, really bad, Chigurh wants that money too. This leads to a cross-Texas chase, where it becomes evident that both men are clever, and that Tommy Lee Jones' sheriff is cleverer still.

While the menacing calm with which Chigurh carries out his killings is disturbing, I am not sure why anyone would consider him remotely as evil as say, Hannibal Lecter. Perhaps Lecter was too fictional, too unrealistic for people to relate to, but there are hundreds of other movie characters, including Robert de Niro's Travis Bickle in Taxi Driver, who send a real chill down my spine and induce more fear than Bardem's coin-tossing killer. Oh, he's smart all right, and he plays mildly interesting mind games with several people, some of them his victims, but frankly, it's hard to take a guy with that hairstyle seriously.

Perhaps members of the Academy, who thought this film was worthy of the coveted Best Picture award, or maybe Hollywood in general, felt a certain nostalgia for classic film noir. I'm not saying that the Oscars or the SAG Awards have to be about Spiderman 3, but why is Hollywood so eager to act like it went through film school last year?

I don't know if Bardem deserved the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, but in my opinion, Kelly Macdonald deserved at least a nomination for Best Supporting Actress, if not the actual award, for her portrayal of Carla Jean, the simple, but courageous wife of Llewelyn Moss. It may well be that I felt most sympathetic towards her because her expression of utter bewilderment matched that of the audience. In truth, her interaction with Chigurh towards the end of the film was one of the classiest performances I have seen.

But even Macdonald's performance isn't worth the ten dollars and two hours you might spend on this movie.