"Try and make believe that this is not just madness, because this is not just madness."
These opening words set the mysterious tone of the 2007 crime thriller Michael Clayton. Throughout the opening minutes of the film, director Tony Gilroy employs non-linear storytelling such as this in an effort to captivate the audience. Just minutes after these foreboding words, we see George Clooney have a nearly spiritual encounter with some horses, just for his car to inexplicably explode in the background.
Opening the film with these seemingly unrelated scenes challenges the audience to make sense of what they're watching. This encourages a sense of active engagement, as it has become clear that a passive viewer will be left behind by the intricate plot.
This narrative tool has frequently been criticized, especially in the famously convoluted work of Christopher Nolan. Starting with the end of the film has been dismissed as a "cheap trick," and a lazy substitute to a good plot.
However, I think it's important to distinguish between when this narrative tool helps or hurts the story. In Nolan's The Prestige, starting with a mysterious shot of top-hats in a misty field is a masterful narrative choice. Similar to Michael Clayton, this encourages the audience to lean forward in their seats and pay attention. More importantly, opening with the end is appropriate for the plot of The Prestige. In a film about magicians, it's only fair that the movie itself has some tricks to play on the audience.
The problem arises when in films like Michael Clayton, "starting with the end" is confusing, not captivating. The opening monologue is well acted and sets the tone for the film, but is overdone. It drags for nearly 2 minutes, accompanied with B-roll of a New York City law firm. This is far too long for such a scene, especially considering that the audience has no idea who is talking or what they are talking about. The initial mysteriousness of the scene quickly gives way to confusion, undermining its narrative effectiveness.
Furthermore, Michael Clayton contains not one, but two "hook scenes." Just minutes after the first proper scene of the film, the audience is once again challenged by another inexplicable scene. The car exploding in the aforementioned "horse scene" is shocking, yet lacks a true emotional punch. This underwhelming effect is reminiscent of Hitchcock's theory on the difference between suspense and surprise. We have no connection to Clooney's character yet, forced to become what Hitchcock describes as an "objective spectator." This contradicts what a "hook scene" like this should do by disengaging the audience.
If this early segment of the film had been removed, and only left in its chronological place at the end of the film, it would have been much more tense and impactful. The chase scene which leads up to this incident is easily one of the best of the movie. An unnerving score, beautiful low-key cinematography, and restrained performances from Clooney and company contribute towards a powerful sense of anxiety.
However, this great scene is undercut by the "horse scene" being placed in the beginning of the movie. The tension of the chase is limited by the fact that we know what happens already. The scene is painfully predictable because we've already seen Clayton's escape, and it's only a matter of time before the chase reaches this inevitable conclusion. Showing a different perspective of the explosion would have added some value to the climatic moment, but it plays frame for frame exactly like it did an hour and a half earlier.
It's important to acknowledge that Michael Clayton is definitely a good movie. Clooney and Tilda Swinton both give fantastic performances, proven by their respective Oscar nominations. Likewise, Robert Elswit's cinematography is stunning, painting vivid pictures of corporate hallways and the lights of New York. However, an unnecessarily convoluted story limits the narrative effectiveness of the film. As the character Arthur says,"I just need to make my thoughts a little more precise."
Comments