What I noticed is how the "I'm not sure what they're saying, or what's happening right now, but it seems really sophisticated so it must be good" screenwriting and directing school of film making is all the rage, if not all the box office, right now. The roots of "Michael Clayton" lie in "Traffic" and "Syriana" and all seem to flow from Steven Geaghan (spelling?) who wrote the first, and wrote and directed the second. I "liked" Michael Clayton, but when I came out I thought, the whole movie is an ornately dressed up version of (say this like Frankenstein's monster) "Corporations baaadddd!!!" Sure, everyone was good, but in service of what? Archer Daniels Midland sucks? Kill all the lawyers? There is something compelling, to me anyway, about linear, character driven drama that is SPECIFIC. See: "The Verdict" or "Dog Day Afternoon" or "All The Presidents Men" or "Coming Home" or "Tender Mercies" or "Ordinary People" or, out now, "Once."
I'd like to see if Clooney has the chops to make us care about a character in a movie not doing back flips and handstands with parallel story lines and vague but really cool sounding dialogue and whole sections where you don't know what the fuck is going on, but man he looks great (see "Syriana). To me, these guys are stuck telling straightforward stories while falling over backward to avoid predictability, but when you remove the bells and whistles, it's "Corporation baaadddd!!!"




Loading comments…

Posted October 18, 2007 | 11:59 AM (EST)