...and Infamous).
Some years back, George Clooney appeared as a slightly traumatised, passionate but questionably ethical lawyer in the Coen brother's farce Intolerable Cruelty. His role was as the genius of a company. It was fun, in some places very very funny, but not the deepest role he could have done (and why would it, and why should he?).
Now there's Michael Clayton, a film in which he plays a slightly traumatised, more defeated but still ethically questionable lawyer (Michael Clayton). Clooney does this thing - at least, I think he does - where, alone, he studies normal objects: lifts, doors, etc. But I don't know if that isn't because that's what people do or if it's something he does in real life himself. At some points, I wanted him to have no expression, for the camera just to hold at his face, expressionless, unaware - no blinking, no rubbing of eyes, no hurt. There's a 'hurt ' expression he uses in Solaris and 'Intolerable Cruelty' that's in this as well. I found myself wondering: can you not sit still?
This does not make his acting here bad. It's great; I've always thought George Clooney is the proper leading man actor of the classic era, and he has used this, sent it up and done it straight in a just right way over the years; also, the guy is very goodlooking, and sadly for him could never really be a bad guy. It's just there seems to be a bottom line, a flat line at the base of his method. He can never disappear himself in the screen. Go black, go silhouette, go cartoon.
Anyway, I won't spoil Clayton. It involves Clooney as a 'fixer' - a lawyer who works on the dark side of a world class law firm. He helps deal with legal and extra-legal problems. Then one of the firm's partners, Arthur - also, a closer friend of Clayton (played by Tom Wilkinson) has an epiphany or has a breakdown, depending on where you look at it. After learning that the pharma he has been defending for six years has been poisoning people, he starts to strip off his clothes on tape. This starts the ball rolling....but.....
[Deep breath, and a step back, and an achy squeeze and crack in the chest:] The opening speech by Tom's character is brilliant. Frightening, perfectly metaphorically true (and to some extent literally true, if you were to take on that view I explored a couple of years back).
I was engrossed by the film, and liked it alot. There's a shiny, harsh brilliance to it, even though the ending is a little too sweet, I think (people will say this alot over he coming years, when they think of it). Syriana was a darker film - BUT, this is a better film. This might be a great film.
Anyway, I was going to write about Infamous as well but have run out of time. But look: Infamous is not as famous as Capote. Hoffman's film is great, and Hoffman is great as him. But this film is better and actually more entertaining. This is like it was made by people who knew Truman Capote - or, at least, New Yorkers. It's much funnier than the other one. It's as sincere, and serious, but less solemn (which can only be a good thing).
Some years back, George Clooney appeared as a slightly traumatised, passionate but questionably ethical lawyer in the Coen brother's farce Intolerable Cruelty. His role was as the genius of a company. It was fun, in some places very very funny, but not the deepest role he could have done (and why would it, and why should he?).
Now there's Michael Clayton, a film in which he plays a slightly traumatised, more defeated but still ethically questionable lawyer (Michael Clayton). Clooney does this thing - at least, I think he does - where, alone, he studies normal objects: lifts, doors, etc. But I don't know if that isn't because that's what people do or if it's something he does in real life himself. At some points, I wanted him to have no expression, for the camera just to hold at his face, expressionless, unaware - no blinking, no rubbing of eyes, no hurt. There's a 'hurt ' expression he uses in Solaris and 'Intolerable Cruelty' that's in this as well. I found myself wondering: can you not sit still?
This does not make his acting here bad. It's great; I've always thought George Clooney is the proper leading man actor of the classic era, and he has used this, sent it up and done it straight in a just right way over the years; also, the guy is very goodlooking, and sadly for him could never really be a bad guy. It's just there seems to be a bottom line, a flat line at the base of his method. He can never disappear himself in the screen. Go black, go silhouette, go cartoon.
Anyway, I won't spoil Clayton. It involves Clooney as a 'fixer' - a lawyer who works on the dark side of a world class law firm. He helps deal with legal and extra-legal problems. Then one of the firm's partners, Arthur - also, a closer friend of Clayton (played by Tom Wilkinson) has an epiphany or has a breakdown, depending on where you look at it. After learning that the pharma he has been defending for six years has been poisoning people, he starts to strip off his clothes on tape. This starts the ball rolling....but.....
[Deep breath, and a step back, and an achy squeeze and crack in the chest:] The opening speech by Tom's character is brilliant. Frightening, perfectly metaphorically true (and to some extent literally true, if you were to take on that view I explored a couple of years back).
I was engrossed by the film, and liked it alot. There's a shiny, harsh brilliance to it, even though the ending is a little too sweet, I think (people will say this alot over he coming years, when they think of it). Syriana was a darker film - BUT, this is a better film. This might be a great film.
Anyway, I was going to write about Infamous as well but have run out of time. But look: Infamous is not as famous as Capote. Hoffman's film is great, and Hoffman is great as him. But this film is better and actually more entertaining. This is like it was made by people who knew Truman Capote - or, at least, New Yorkers. It's much funnier than the other one. It's as sincere, and serious, but less solemn (which can only be a good thing).
No comments:
Post a Comment