[Holadem]

I am surprised there are no threads discussing this excellent film. It looks like a legal drama, but as the title hints, it's more of a character study of sorts. Clooney continues to impress with choices and performances.


I do have a question:

Spoiler:

Much of the drama hinges on the danger that Arthur Edens' bizarre reversal represents for Unorth. But how real is that danger (in real life)? Don't the obvious ethical violations invalidate any material he might provide to the other side?

--
H

[Haggai]

I saw this over the weekend as well. With the reviews being as good as they are, I was expecting more; I thought it was OK, but not much more than that, although the cast is certainly very good. In any event, I seem to be somewhat in the minority on this one, as the word-of-mouth I had heard was also extremely positive.

H, I'm not sure I get your question:

Spoiler:

What ethical violations are you referring to? That document was devastating to U-North's entire position, so any shenanigans that might have occurred in bringing it to light would not have shielded them from the consequences of the truth coming out.

[Holadem]

Holy cow where have you been?

Quote:

What ethical violations are you referring to?

Attorney-client privilege. I guess I was thinking in strictly legal terms (or at least my understanding thereof). On TV, it often seems that lawyers often find ways to contain that sort of stuff by having judges issue gag orders (on a crazy man, ha), declare this and that inadmissible on this and that ground. But you are right, there would really be no escaping the consequences, even outside of the court room.

I liked the film a lot but I do have some issues: I would have liked to see more of what makes Clayton a "fixer". Or even a janitor. I would have liked to see him succesfully mop up something. The hit and run case was meant to establish this, but he didn't really do anything other than tell the guy know that he needs to retain a local attorney immediately. Again, the point that he is not a miracle worker is well taken. But I am not sure what exactly he accomplished there.

The resolution relied on a terrible cliche that I wish writers would do away with for good.

And I am not exactly sure the film earned that relatively lenghty coda -- I am not sure I know Clayton enough to relate. Still, a great time. I may see it again, for the nuances I missed. The languid pace, elements of the direction and setting are favorably reminiscent of The Insider, although this is nowhere as accomplished as that masterpiece.

--
H

[Kirk Tsai]

Attorney-client privilege only applies to a confidential communication made by the client to the attorney. It does not protect the underlying information itself; just imagine if it did, then no evidence would ever be admissible--you would just have to talk to your lawyer. The memo in the film was not originally a communication between the company and the law firm. I can only assume that the plaintiffs' attorneys had made a discovery request for all relevant documents, and Wilkinson's firm not turning it over was unethical in the first place.

I was only so so on the film, too. The movie begins terrifically with Wilkinson's words, and the scene where Clooney declares himself a janitor. After that, I don't think the film maintains the momentum. Watching Sydney Pollock chew people out became the most fun in the film. I especially didn't believe in the following plot point:

Spoiler:

That everyone just thought Clayton died in the bombing. The two hired guys were very professional when they dealt with Wilkinson, so I have a hard time believing they didn't take a look at the car and see no body there.

[Haggai]

OK, I see what you mean about the legal questions. I was asking the question because it seemed obvious to me that the public beating they would take would far outweigh any legal procedures they might be able to rely on in court to squash the evidence; I guess you pretty much agree anyway.

[Holadem]

Quote:

Watching Sydney Pollock chew people out became the most fun in the film.

I was just thinking that he is one of the handful of actors who excel at this sort of character. Like Philip Baker-Hall or Christopher Plummer. These guys have elevated corruption and soullessness in the corridors of power into an art form -- it is almost endearing.

--
H

[Robert Crawford]

This thread is now designated the Official Discussion Thread for "Michael Clayton". Please, post all comments, links to outside reviews, film and box office discussion items to this thread.

All HTF member film reviews of "Michael Clayton" should be posted to the Official Review Thread.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.


Crawdaddy

[Brett_M]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kirk Tsai

Attorney-client privilege only applies to a confidential communication made by the client to the attorney. It does not protect the underlying information itself; just imagine if it did, then no evidence would ever be admissible--you would just have to talk to your lawyer. The memo in the film was not originally a communication between the company and the law firm. I can only assume that the plaintiffs' attorneys had made a discovery request for all relevant documents, and Wilkinson's firm not turning it over was unethical in the first place.

I was only so so on the film, too. The movie begins terrifically with Wilkinson's words, and the scene where Clooney declares himself a janitor. After that, I don't think the film maintains the momentum. Watching Sydney Pollock chew people out became the most fun in the film. I especially didn't believe in the following plot point:

Spoiler:

That everyone just thought Clayton died in the bombing. The two hired guys were very professional when they dealt with Wilkinson, so I have a hard time believing they didn't take a look at the car and see no body there.

With regards to your spoilerized portion I ask this: Would you stick around to check?

[Michael Reuben]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brett_M

With regards to your spoilerized portion I ask this: Would you stick around to check?

My thought exactly. And in response to Holadem's point above, in a sense we do get to see Clayton's work as a "fixer". In order to make the film's conclusion happen, a lot of fancy footwork has to be done with various government offices and agencies (I'm trying to be vague here) and probably some media outlets. It's exactly the kind of job for which you'd need a well-connected, miracle-working "fixer".

I once met such a guy. His major claim to (non)fame was that he'd managed to keep a series of very dramatic photos involving the death of a famous politician, in seriously compromising circumstances, from ever seeing the light of publication. I have no idea how he accomplished it. Today the same gentleman occupies a very high position in corporate America. I have no idea how he did that either.

M.

[Robert Crawford]

Michael,
What did you think of the film?






Crawdaddy