Slightly Outdated Movie Commentary

I think Ross is basically right about Michael Clayton and basically right about Into the Wild but I wouldn't join him in lumping the two together as films I liked "more than [they] deserved." The problems with Into the Wild are of an ethical or philosophical nature.

Jon Krakauer's book versionbook version of the story is already far too kind to Christopher McCandless and his antics and the film erred even further in that direction. But if you believe -- as Sean Penn seems to -- that McCandless' recklessness and cruelty toward his immediate family were, in fact, a noble spiritual journey worthy of celebration, then Penn's done a brilliant job of transforming the story into a film that sees what Penn sees. I feel like that's a bit of an irresponsible thing to do, but it's good filmmaking; a very good movie, just one promoting a weird and wrongheaded point of view.

Clayton, by contrast, I was super-enthusiastic about while watching and immediately after leaving the theater, but thinking back the preposterousness of the underlying plot seems like a big problem. It didn't bother me at the time, but I have a hard time believing it wouldn't bother me if I watched it again.

Comments

but thinking back the preposterousness of the underlying plot seems like a big problem

I'm pretty sure it was just a movie. And a purely fictional one at that.

Posted by ed | November 8, 2007 4:54 PM

Hey, I just saw "Heat!"

Posted by Jim Gaffigan | November 8, 2007 5:14 PM

Hey, I just saw "Heat!"

Well played Gaffigan!

Posted by drjimcooper | November 8, 2007 5:23 PM

Geez, I never realized breaking off from you family, when an adult, was such a horrible sin. It is not all that uncommon. It is indeed hard on the family but we are neither part of that family or Chris McCandless, so we do not know what the pressures really were.

Suppose the family was not part of the equation (suppose all other details were the same but he went on his journey after the rest of the family died in a car accident). Would it then be "a noble spiritual journey worthy of celebration"? Is then the only difference that he chose to leave his family? Isn't that something we are poorly positioned to pass judgment on? (His sister seems to understand his wanting to break off from their parents though she is sad it means breaking off from her as well.)

Ross in his review says Chris "smashed up countless lives while chasing down his bliss". Do you also feel that? Who besides his family?

As to Michael Clayton, I am just curious which part of the underlying plot was preposterous. That a corporate lawyer would hire hit men? The car bomb? Something else? (I am not being tendentious. I am just curious.)

Posted by David Margolies | November 8, 2007 5:24 PM

DM, if I remember correctly, MY's problem with Clayton was that he is hyped as an all-star lawyer, but apparently for no reason, as he proves to be rather inept at what is supposedly the best at.

Posted by abject funk | November 8, 2007 5:29 PM

I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong about Into the Wild. It was not a good movie on a technical level. The dialogue is downright laughable at times, and the soundtrack was not very good.

However, it also went to great lengths to show the pain he caused his family. Just about everyone he meets in the movie tells him abandoning his family is wrong, the hippie woman being the most effective. By the end, Chris himself realizes the error of trying to close himself off from society completely, but by that time it's too late.

Posted by mad6798j | November 8, 2007 5:34 PM

Michael Clayton is a good example of a MacGuffin-driven film. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macguffin You wind up the plot and off it goes. The picture is far too long at 2 hours, is so predictable that an unnecessary flash-back is added just to confuse things, and the unbelievable car-bomb chase saps the denouement of all excitement. Plus, the characters are stereotypes that have been in half-a-dozen other films you've seen in the fast five years.

I'm a George Clooney fan, and he and the other fine actors in this project do a pretty good job with what they've got. But it's just not much of a movie.

Posted by Bloix | November 8, 2007 5:38 PM

You were just distracted by that dreamy George Clooney, Matt.

Seriously, though. I felt the same way about Clayton. Look at the pretty horses! What about Clooney's character would make him get out of his car for that?

Posted by stand | November 8, 2007 5:39 PM

"DM, if I remember correctly, MY's problem with Clayton was that he is hyped as an all-star lawyer, but apparently for no reason, as he proves to be rather inept at what is supposedly the best at."

Others said that too. I disagree. The point about the hit and run is there was no solution other than getting a good local lawyer and turning himself in. Clayton makes that very clear: "The police love hit and runs" (because the evidence is prima facie -- if you are not at the scene, you ran, and paint transfer identify the car). Clayton's job was to see that the man did not get himself in more trouble and start but rather started getting himself out.

As to dealing with the the lawyer off his meds, Clayton does not know there is damning evidence not disclosed in discovery which would torpedo the case until after the murder (others know but do not tell him). So the problem he is trying to solve is not the real problem. (He thinks it is just the guy having a breakdown because of years of pointless sleaze, not the guy unable to lie given illegal failure to disclose.)

I agree about the car bomb.

Posted by David Margolies | November 8, 2007 5:52 PM

The main problem with Michael Clayton, preposterosity-wise, was the notion that law firms employ fixers who go from car accidents to mental problems to whatever, in any jurisdiction, and magically fix things. Got a car accident, you call one kind of guy. Got a guy with mental problems, you call someone else. Got environmental problems, call yet another guy.

If the movie had been War of the Gilgoths III, fine. But for a movie that was meant as social commentary, it should at least have gotten the main character's job, which was central to the plot, right.

Posted by ostap | November 8, 2007 5:52 PM

This reminds me a bit of the Great Motorcycle Diaries War of October 2004 (or thereabouts).

Posted by Julian Elson | November 8, 2007 6:00 PM

But ostap, wasn't the point that Michael Clayton's basic role was to set you up and make the connections to fix whatever mess you'd made for yourself? That's what they showed him doing in his office on the phone all day. It seemed like he doesn't actually do much fixing himself, other than using his interpersonal skills to handle poeple, but is instead the go-to guy to find out which other guy will get shit done for you.

Posted by ryan | November 8, 2007 6:04 PM

I do not agree with ostap. Both the hit and run and the breakdown required someone who was skilled in dealing with local police and prosecutors (to get the best deal for the hit and run driver and to get the breakdown lawyer out of the lockup). There wasn't anything magical. Others have complained that Clayton should be able to make the hit and run go away, but that is not possible. The Wilkinson (?) character had not committed a serious crime. He had just had an episode in a courtroom. No one wanted to prosecute anyone, but neither could they just release him except to someone who looked responsible (that is, not the interns and young associates with him). Who better than experienced son/brother of cops Clayton?

It seems to me they both call for the same type of guy. Clayton did not deal with environmental problems. He was assigned to get the lawyer back on his meds but that was in part because they were friends.

Posted by David Margolies | November 8, 2007 6:08 PM

Look at the pretty horses! What about Clooney's character would make him get out of his car for that?

Maybe Danny wanted to warn Linus not to help Blevins get his horse back.

But, seriously, there's some symbolism from Clayton's son's fantasy novel to imply that Clayton sees something of Arthur's spirit in the horses. Which has a cornball ring to it, but worked for me.

Posted by JB | November 8, 2007 6:17 PM

The hit and run illustrated just how preposterous Clayton's supposed position was. A major client has a hit and run. What do you do? Oh, yeh, call Clayton - he's the fixer. So Clayton drives out to CT, talks to the guy and recommends he hire a local lawyer. No shit. Really? A local lawyer. No way the first lawyer ever would have thought of that!

Posted by ostap | November 8, 2007 6:18 PM

No shit. Really? A local lawyer. No way the first lawyer ever would have thought of that!

True enough, but the movie makes it clear that shit rolls downhill. It may not be that Lawyer #1 couldn't have dealt with the problem; more likely he just didn't want to. I think when they're on the phone he tells Clayton he's in the Caribbean or something. I got the impression this mini-crisis had interrupted his vacation--so he was neither in a mood to do crisis management nor close enough to New York to do the kind of hand-holding the guy seemed to need.

Also, while Lawyer #1 could have advised him to call a local lawyer, it's Clayton who actually has the name and number of a local lawyer, who calls back pretty quickly. Time being of the essence, those kinds of connections are valuable. And who has better connections, George Clooney or the guy who played "Editor" in All the King's Men?

Posted by JB | November 8, 2007 6:57 PM

ostap makes a good point, but I still disagree. The client needs hand holding and he needs to act fast and he needs to not make his situation worse (by loudly saying it is the county's fault). And he needs not to try to claim the car was stolen.

He has committed a felony (a hit and run with injuries is a felony). He is upset and irrational. Just telling him to call a local lawyer likely won't work. First, who? And second, he will feel Clayton's firm could have done more rather than fobbing him off.

So Clayton goes there. He had already called the local lawyer. He explains to the client what is what (there is no magic way to make this go away, you are in big trouble, but the trouble can usually be mitigated, but remember, the police love these cases and don't like you so do not make things worse).

There is no advice other than get a local lawyer and turn yourself in. But the client pays a big retainer so some hand holding is in order. It is not obviously a bad idea that a important partner from the firm would be best to represent the client in this matter but (Clayton says) it is in fact a bad idea.

Clayton knows the police and know how cases like this are handled. The client and his usual lawyer do not.

Posted by David Margolies | November 8, 2007 7:01 PM

So Clayton drives out to CT, talks to the guy and recommends he hire a local lawyer. No shit. Really? A local lawyer. No way the first lawyer ever would have thought of that!

I'm a criminal lawyer, and I thought that part of the movie was fine - realistic. I work in Toronto and if there's one area big firms are out of their depths on, it's criminal law. It's the one area that no big firm here even dares to cover. That being said, I know it happens that a big firm lawyer might be called out to hold hands for a client and size up the situation. Clayton showing up and calming the guy down and getting him a local lawyer is part of the big firm retainer.

And getting a local lawyer isn't simply a matter of opening up the yellow pages. You don't want just *anybody*, and in fact, in my experience, some of the best criminal lawyers are those that work quietly, so that they might not be well known outside a very small legal community (conversely, the lawyers who are always in the media aren't always the best).

But I took the whole scene to be meaningful of something else. While I have no trouble believing that Clayton wouldn't have done what he did in any event, I thought that his assessment of the situation was coloured by his recent experience, and that his treatment of that client was reflective of a changing mindset - a conscience. He was tired of being the janitor. He was tired of the coverups, and no longer felt like hiding a client from the consequences. When confronted by the guy who says [about him being misinformed about Clayton being a miracle worker] "You aren't the fixer? Or you just aren't any good at it?" - I take Clayton's response to be "you just aren't worth it anymore, buddy".

Either way, it worked for me. And I really liked the movie as a whole.

Posted by McKingford | November 8, 2007 8:44 PM

But ostap, wasn't the point that Michael Clayton's basic role was to set you up and make the connections to fix whatever mess you'd made for yourself? That's what they showed him doing in his office on the phone all day. It seemed like he doesn't actually do much fixing himself, other than using his interpersonal skills to handle poeple, but is instead the go-to guy to find out which other guy will get shit done for you.

The way I've heard it put is that a successful law firm needs finders, grinders and minders. Finders would be the schmoozers who are good at bringing in new business, grinders would be the guys who work do all the hardcore legal work, and the minders would be the guys who know how figure out who in the firm can best help the client and keep them happy. Michael Clayton would be a minder; since it's mentioned his practice is nominally probate I figure his specifc job is cleaning up after rich trust-fund kids when they do something stupid. If so, that sort of experience probably would make him a good point man for dealing with midnight hit-and-runs and guys having very public meltdowns.

I also think the hit-and-run incident provides a sort of parallel to the main plot. In both cases someone did something criminal, the difference in the case of the main villain is that not having someone like Michael Clayton around they panicked and did stupid stuff that made things worse.

Posted by heckblazer | November 8, 2007 8:46 PM

My problem with Into the Wild is much more basic: If you head off on a spiritual journey it makes a little bit of sense to take basic steps to avoid dying, such as not eating poisonous things. That requires knowing which things are poisonous, knowledge that is freely available in books. Not eating poisonous things in no way detracts from the spiritual journey. Dumbass didn't die by turning his back on his family, he died from being a Dumbass. Reading some kind of noble spiritual message into dumbassery is meta-dumbassery, the kind of thing that leads to all manner of unpleasantness if enough people do it. Dumbass got exactly what he was looking for - going mano a mano against nature, armed only with his wits. Nature won. Surprise! There is no deeper truth here - stupidity kills.

Posted by togolosh | November 8, 2007 9:05 PM

I hate to get back to generational themes - I'm trying to get past these things - but I can't help but think that what Mr. Y really meant was that McCandless was supposed to have known every angle, prepared for every contingency; this seems to be the expectation of my generation.

McCandless's parents' generation got to widdle away their adult years on affairs, divorces, children left all over the place, spiritual journeys, bad investments, and generally irresponsible behavior.

We're supposed to take care of everything, and everyone.

That will be done; you choose that or not to live at all. But it is a lot to ask.

Probably, few of you deserve it.

Posted by Linus | November 8, 2007 9:59 PM

Togolosh, lots of people risk death for all sorts of reasons, including spritual ones. Yes, it's easy to judge Mr McCandless for stupidity or recklessness, or carelessness about his family, but I do not think that takes away from what he was trying to do. It seems to me he was trying to find a different way to live, or at least to expose how much our lives are corrupted by excessive desire for material comforts. It seems he was quite methodical about this, researching rather diligently about how to survive in the conditions in which he intended to try to live. I think it is rather remarkable that he was able to survive in Alaska as long as he did, and I think he learned from his isolation about the importance of living in human society, with all the compromises that entails. I think it's pretty cavalier to write him off as a dumbass. He wasn't on a spritiual journey but rather an experiment with life, and one of the things about life is that there is always the possibility that you will die.

Posted by pd | November 8, 2007 10:38 PM

Too kind to McCandless? Clearly, the kid had a literal psychotic break -- something neither the book nor the movie seem to be willing to explore. While lionizing his death seems like the stuff of typical Hollywood over-dramatization, excoriating a mentally ill young adult for his foolish death seems petty and bitter.

Posted by Giantduck | November 8, 2007 10:56 PM

It's good to see Matt has a conservative streak on an issue as basic as your responsibilities to your parents.

Posted by James Kabala | November 8, 2007 11:02 PM

Put me in the did-you-see-the-same-movie-I-saw camp in response to Matt's take on Into The Wild. I thought Penn did a good job of showing McCandless's positive and negative traits. Matt thinks that Penn portrayed what happened as "a noble spiritual journey worthy of celebration", but towards the end of the film we see Chris write in his journal "Happiness is only real if it's shared." Wouldn't this seem to add a cautionary inflection to the movie's message?

Posted by Ashish George | November 9, 2007 12:39 AM

I did see Clayton a second time. Good movies are worth another look. First time, you get the "experience" of the story. After that you can pay a little more attention to how it's put together.

My take: The movie was especially well done. Very well written, an inventive structure, crisp dialog. What didn't seem to work second time around was some of the acting. Kind of uneven, imo. That said, I think Wilkinson had the role of his life and will get an Oscar, deservedly. Swinton, I'm still not sure if she nailed it or if she was over the top. Fun to watch, anyway. Clooney had more of a movie star role than one that called for any deep acting. But it is his movie, so I give him credit for carrying the story, and getting the damn thing made.

I didn't find the horse scene out of place. It makes sense in the context of the movie, though it comes as a surprise. Wilkinson's monologue was brilliant, imo, though I've seen other opinions.

Glad to see people are still talking it, anyway.

Posted by JJF | November 9, 2007 1:58 AM

McCandless was just a kid, just beginning to explore what his life was going to mean. It's unfair to judge his choices as those of a considered adult. He needed to distance himself from his family, but as the movie implies he most likely would have returned.

I thought "Into the Wild" was heartfelt and inspiring. The best thing about it wasn't the depiction of him, but the kindness and thoughtfulness of most all the people he met on the road. (Something that accords with my experience hitchhiking when I was young). The movie wasn't about judging McCandless, it was about what it means to explore and be open to the world. Including the risks and (sometimes) the stupidity that can be involved in that.

Posted by mq | November 9, 2007 10:02 AM

You don't have to love "Alexander Supertramp" (yeesh, what a nickname; that's probably the thing I hate most about him) to think Into the Wild was a great movie.

I thought it was shot beautifully and that the soundtrack was great, if a little intrusive. Very solid supporting performances, too. Vince Vaughn and Catherine Keener are always good. And the "hippy husband," guy was excellent in his first acting role.

Despite their obvious sympathies for him, neither Penn nor Krakauer are blind to the cruelty and foolishness of "Alex." Catherine Keener character calls him on it at the very beginning of the movie. And it's his flaws (along with some bad luck) that lead to his demise - very much a tragic story with a very affecting ending.

Posted by JB2 | November 9, 2007 11:56 AM

Of course the journey has a "noble and spiritual" element to it. Although there is a personal aspect that he doesn't fully recognize, McCandless is rejecting materialism in an attempt to discover his more basic humanity. This is, at least in the conventions of narrative, a noble and spiritual goal. But if the intention of the film was to portray him as nobler, wiser, more human -- in essence, "better" -- than the rest of us, why is his demise (which I don't think was portrayed as noble as much as foolish) repeatedly foreshadowed by other characters trying to point him in a different direction? Why is the pain he caused his parents and sister shown in such great detail, rather than as an inconvenient side effect of his noble actions? Why does the film constantly refer to his upbringing -- not in terms of materialism, but in terms of his familial problems -- if the story is meant to be viewed as ideological and not personal? Why are his final words essentially an expression of his regret for abandoning his family and casting aside the people who came to care about him?

Ross says his faults only slipped out of Penn's story "involuntarily," but isn't it possible that Penn, who people are generally lauding for his filmmaking, was aware of these things? (And is it possible that some of this criticism is based on preconceptions of Penn as a naive idealist rather than on the movie itself?) Obviously, the kid was bright and charismatic, so the viewer will have some sympathy for him, just as the other charaters did. But that doesn't mean the film, by portraying this integral part of the story, intends for him to be a purely sympathetic or noble figure. I don't blame Penn if McCandless's effectiveness as a character causes some people to project his (McCandless's) idealism onto the movie as a whole.

Posted by ibid | November 9, 2007 2:24 PM

Sorry - just rethinking here about Michael Clayton...

I said above that the scene with the needy hit-and-run client was realistic, and as I think about why, I think it is precisely the dynamic of the situation: a lawyer (the "fixer") shows up who really can't help the client, but proposes to arrange for someone who can; the client is enraged, and can't understand why the lawyer on the scene can't help. In my experience, this is exactly right. There are countless things I, as a lawyer, am not competent to handle, yet a client thinks I am all-knowing - it is inconceivable to them that I don't know, or have to hand off to someone else. This applies even for more sophisticated or wealthy clients (as in the movie). At the same time, it is frustrating, as a lawyer, not to be able to help the client with a problem that exceeds my knowledge or capacity.

The client's rage at Michael Clayton captures this dynamic very well - from both the perspective of the client and lawyer.

Posted by McKingford | November 9, 2007 3:12 PM

I just say "Clayton" and thought it was excellent. The "stop and look at the horses" scene made perfect sense and was in line with Clayton's character. Maybe those who are criticizing the scene did not notice that when Clayton got into the apartment where Wilkinson was killed, he noticed the book his son had recommended, and the book had a woodblock illustration of horses on a hill. You could also tell from Clayton's family scenes that he wished he could have more time to get into his son's world. Finally, Clayton, though "the fixer" definitely has a dreamy side: that's why he is able to understand and talk down the brilliant but crazy Wilkinson charater, and it explains his bar venture as well.

And Swinton was not over the top. She was brilliant. And her character was chilling, because usually movie sociopaths seem to be born that way, with ice in their veins. Swinton's character literally rehearsed everything. You get the sense she was not born evil but learned how to become evil with enough practice.

Posted by RaymondA | November 9, 2007 10:55 PM