.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I haven’t seen this yet, but my father asked me to post the following question for him:
Why did Michael Clayton leave his car to see the horses?
Because the screenwriter thought to himself, “How do I get him out of the car so he doesn’t get blown up? I know, I’ll put in some weird mysterious horses and then replace them when I think of something better.”
Then he forgot.
Seriously though, I quite enjoyed Michael Clayton in spite of the magical ponies.
They symbolize the yearning for a pastoral reality in lieu of the existential crises he’s been facing.
Or, yeah, what friedo said.
Saw the movie today. It’s quite good, but the horse scene is a giant cheat in flaming letters across the sky. Unusually, there was very little else that felt like a cheat. Hard to believe this is the same writer who made the last Bourne movie an exercise in idiocy.
I was going to say something like “because the plot required it” too, but THIS:
. . . is much better! 
But seriously, there are other logical problems with that scene. Such as: Why were the horses wandering around in a field that was not fenced in? (Note that Clayton did not climb over any fence to approach them) Were they escaped animals? I have noticed that some people raised in suburbia like Clayton’s character tend to find farm animals fascinating, and wanting to approach horses roaming free does not strike me as a strange emotional reaction, though not necessarily a prudent one. Horses can be majestic creatures, and they are usually less fiesty than say, a bull might be, so approaching them is not automatically a stupid thing to do. However, the horses were also haltered, which is not something I believe is typically done to animals that are put out to pasture. (We need someone like Ruffian in here to confirm this.)
So, a strange, logically impossible scene, but in the context of the film it worked.
I also liked this movie. I thought it was Clooney’s best performance since Out of Sight.
It was good. But Tim Wilkerson will get a Best Supporting Oscar nom or the world is crazier than I think.
When Clayton is thumbing through the insane lawyer’s copy of the fantasy book, you can see, among other things, a small picture of some horses in a pasture that matches what we see in the beginning/end when Clayton leaves his car. It’s an odd little spiritual moment in an otherwise gritty film.
My own question: Is that an accurate portrayal of bipolar disorder? I thought bipolar disorder was more of a mood problem – extreme happiness alternating with suicidal depression.
It’s not really “extreme happiness” as much as severe mania – that’s why they used to call it manic depression. In some cases that can include hallucinations, paranoia, and general nuttiness.
I’m not an expert, but I’ve had reason to talk to several people with bi-polar relatives. They said when their sister or father or what have you was on an upswing in mood, he/she was capable of doing almost anything. They would get ideas they would not normally have, attack whatever problems faced them with fantastic energy, think a million miles a minute, etc. I don’t know how accurate Wilkinson’s portrayal is, but the bewildered reaction of the people around him seems to jive with what I heard.
That’s dead on, Phantom Dennis.
I enjoyed this film but was surprised that the storyline was so linear.
I thought the film was great but I didn’t like how they tried to off Michael. OK, so the first lawyer, Arthur, they staked out for at least two full days. They tapped his phone. They followed his movements. They made absolutely certain this guy was really a threat then they went in covertly, made it look so convincingly like an accident or a suicide that everyone but Michael was certain he offed himself.
Along comes Michael. They don’t bother to tap his phones or follow him. The only reason they know he’s on the trail is that he happens to show up where they are already. They really don’t know who he is or what he knows or what he plans to do with any knowledge he might have. And yes, Michael kinda pointed that out to Karen at the end but it still needs to be pointed out now because a glib one line doesn’t entirely erase the flaw.
But how did they try to kill him? A car bomb! A freakin’ car bomb! The second lawyer at this law firm to die in 48 hours and it’s from a huge fiery explosion using electronics just sitting in the back seat? No one’s going to be suspicious?
The security took two or three attempts at confirming a no pulse on Arthur to ensure, yes, indeed, he was dead. They took out Michael’s car remotely. They couldn’t even see if anyone else was around or near it or hit by the explosion let alone if, gee, Michael was in the car while it detonated.
It was sloppy work all around, especially in light of what the movie’s already shown us they’re capable of.
I agree the car bombing (and the manner in which Clooney survived it) seemed uncharacteristically pulpy and “scripted” in a movie which had mostly avoided that kind of thing. It looked like they needed a way for the bad guys to mistakenly think they had killed Clooney and this was what they came up with. It was incongruous enough with the careful realism, plausibility and meticulousness of the baddies in this that it smacked to me of script doctoring. I wonder if that whole sequence was added just to give Clooney an action scene of sorts and push the ending slightly more in the direction of a conventional thriller. It wouldn’t surprise me if the original script had something more talky or subtle instead of the car bomb.
It was a good movie, though. Clooney was very good. A contained but expressive performance. He was good in the small scenes, like with the hit-and-run driver he was dealing with where you could see the little facial tics of irritation and asshole fatigue underneath his professional and pragmatic demeanor.
Wilkerson’s performance has already been mentioned but Tilda Swinton was also pretty good.
Fascinating. I’m very relieved that was explained. Unfortunately, the picture was way too small for me to have noticed any of that from the back of the theater. Nor does it explain how he saw the horses from his car when he made the odd turn that took him there that surprised the trailers. Or the whole business of the car bombing, which is every bit as bad as described.
In a film full of small interesting moments - my wife the executive absolutely loved the careful rehearsal of every line they showed Tilda Swinton doing before being confident and professional in front of people, something you never see in a movie, but something she spends endless hours doing herself - it’s too bad that the critical moment was so screwed up. I do appreciate the rest of the movie, though. It was a film for adults.
Am I the only one who saw Michael Clayton and was not impressed by it?
I was evidently one of the few people who caught that too. I remember thinking at the time I saw the picture in the book: “I hope they go back to that, because otherwise people are going to miss why he stopped to look at the horses”.
I guess I was right. 
Wait, you thought the lawyer was calm and professional in her presentations? I thought she seemed about to crack up more or less all the time. The guy behind her (head boss man What’s-His-Name?) was constantly hovering like he thought he might have to grab her by the neck and drag her from the room when she flipped her lid and started gibbering.
But yeah, he saw the horses in the book.
I understand that he saw the horses in the book but that really doesn’t explain why he stopped. It’s not as if he had any interest in the book, it was just something his son wanted to share and which he had thus far ignored. My biggest problem with that scene though is how he instantly decided that if he throws in his personal effects everyone will assume he is dead. Now if the fire is hot enough to consume every part of his body, including teeth (the way every other cremated corpse in filmdom is identified), how will those personal effects survive for identification?
Nitpicking aside I liked the movie, and since I assume the reason for this contrived scene is because Clooney agreed at the last minute to do a sequel, I will attend that too. (I did think Out of Sight was at least twice as enjoyable and would welcome a sequel there also.)
I saw the movie last weekend and by the end, my impression was he was creating a cover so he could go underground and into police custody as a witness and ultimately be part of their sting operation at the end. I believe Clayton told the cops (specifically, his brother) that he faked his death in the explosion by tossing his personal effects into the burning car and they went along with it by putting out the statement that he had died in the explosion. (Remember that it was the police who had notified Clayton’s firm about the car bombing.)
Clayton had a history of gambling and money problems. When they used the car bomb, I think they were betting on people assuming that it would have something to do with Clayton’s relationships with various underworld types.
Nice post NDP! I didn’t think of either of those things, but I think you’re absolutely right on both counts.
I also agree with Tenebras about the Tilda Swinton character seeming to always be on the verge of losing it and her worried boss hovering (another thing I didn’t think about, but yeah, that’s what he was doing).
Yes. Yes you were.
From a bipolar point of view, I felt that the scene in the alley where Michael finally finds Arthur was stunning. Arthur is smiling one minute like a little kid and offering Michael fresh bread, then all of a sudden he’s with the program and rattling off reasons why he won’t be institutionalized in NY vs. why he could have been had he stayed in Wisconsin. I have been through that scenario before personally, where I was either out of it or acting like I was out of it to bait someone, then snap back into reality. Tom Wilkinson was great. I would have loved to have seen his face during the opening narration, but I know that they filmed it that way for a good reason. Anyway, being bipolar is no bag of kittens and please remember, with any disease different people will react in different ways. I have never been full blown manic, but boy oh boy have the depressions been bad.