I feel as if I should start this off by explaining that I tend to watch a lot of movies. I do this, not because I like a particular director or a particular genre, but because I am so easily amused that I enjoy watching a simple plot line that reflects Propp's 31 Narrative Functions in different ways. It is the same for me for books - although I tend to use those as more of a getaway than I do movies.
So, as noted by several of my peers, Michael Clayton does not have a very original plot line... single man takes down the evil corporation by defying all odds. Yet I genuinely enjoyed the way that they executed this in an interesting setting.
Starting with the evil corporation itself, U-North. U-North is supposed to be a company that is all about bettering the environment and the people living in it, as seen in the video which Arthur loops over and over again. While this is supposed to be the company bettering the lives of people, this cheery facade hides a company run by a woman who will do anything to keep her job and the company's name in good esteem. From poisoning the crop fields, to hiring two hitman to take out Arthur and Michael... the audience is left to believe that this may not have been the first time, as the hitman seem to be known by others in the country. So good = evil... that storyline is established.
Cue Lawfirm representing U-North. Knows what really happen, knows what is going on, yet chooses to ignore all of it for money. So, institution of law = evil.
Enter Michael Clayton, from the beginning framework of the story we come to understand that he helps cover up problems with the law (he's called the cleaner). While he is expected to be this almost sleazy individual, he is the one who saves the day. From an environmental activist standpoint, it is difficult to own up to what this movie is trying to say. Is it saying that we put too much faith in the institution of law? Or that we need to stand up for others? Or is it just a movie that thought of an interesting twist on an already done plotline?
Interesting post. This is indeed not a very original story. What I think sets it apart is the elements of Toxic Discourse that are allowed to seep in, while at the same time showing us mainly what the "bad guys" POV. Your "institution of law=evil" argument is a bit far-fetched but works, I suppose, when many of the films central characters (ie villians) are rather cookie-cutter in scope, specifically Sydney Pollack's boss character-very cold and calculating. However, I do think it was the filmmakers' intentions to portray all law as necessarily evil. This law firm is an example of the system of justice has been warped over the last few decades by the proclivity of large-name corporations to not take into consideration the lives of the "little people" and if they do, well, they must be crazy (ala dear departed Arthur Edens). In essence, the writer (s?) of this film, I believe, want us to question the moral implications of the chemical pesticides as well as those who try to keep them on the market. The film is undoubtably propaganda. But the underlying message, be it over-played or not, I feel like is a good one. Even if it is self-serving, at least Michael makes a change...
ReplyDeleteNot every lawyer is evil! What about Elle Woods?! Remember, she worked to get animal testing banned (or something. I can't remember the second one since it sucked.)
ReplyDeleteAs I said in my post, I think Michael's intentions in the end were for revenge. Not to do the right thing to save the environment. That was just a side effect of his decision to turn this woman in. I think it was also a reconciliation with Arthur that he hadn't done and should have. Arthur appreciated him and didn't give Arthur the benefit of the doubt until it was too late.