This movie didn't really do it for me until that last "Screw you, I hold all the cards" moment Clayton had with whats-her-face. I always love those times in movies. But anyhow.
I know that corporations can be ruthless, but that whole scheme seemed just a bit far fetched for me. I like Clooney as the "fixer" or "janitor," I'm sure such men and women do exist. But hired killers? Contracted by a woman as nervous as that? It's starting to seem just a bit over the top. Too much Hollywood need for that extra element of danger. Clayton's symbolic, spontaneous moment of communion with nature that just happens to save his life was just a bit too contrived for me as well. My favorite performance was definitely Arthur's; his switches between confident lucidity and insane outbursts were amazing.
As for content, I was expecting more of either focus on the ecological problem itself, or some actual time in the courtroom. It was an entertaining movie, sure, but I didn't really feel I got to learn all that much, which I was kinda looking forward to. The focus was more on Clooney's general self-loathing or disgust with his job than on the actual ecological damage done by U-North, or its ramifications for the farmers it hurt. I'm kinda having a hard time analyzing it through the other texts we've read, aside from "Corporation bad, hurt environment." I can see how it relates to Cancer Alley and everything, sure, the corporation is chemically harming and disregarding some poorer people (though they were white, unlike some of the ones we read about), but like I said earlier, that actual issue is taking a backseat to Clooney's personal troubles.
I agree, Toby, the last revelation- bitchslap- moment was very impressive. Also your line "Clayton's symbolic, spontaneous moment of communion with nature that just happens to save his life was just a bit too contrived for me as well" struck me as very apt. Why would anyone get out of the car? While it worked in the framework of the save the earth narrative, it didn't seem like something an actual person would really do! I agree that the movie should have been more about the people who were affected, and perhaps they SHOULD have been black to involve the race element a little more thoroughly. This speaks again, I'm afraid, to Hollywood's white-is-right proclivity. Disgusting and toxic, I believe. I do however disagree slightly with you, in that I appreciated the "behind-the-scenes" look at Clooney doing his fixing. Audiences are not usually privy to such inside views and I for one felt grateful for it. All in all though, an interesting and articulate response.
ReplyDeleteI agree what you stated here and pretty much reiterated many of your main points in my own blog post about this movie.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I like George Clooney, I do kinda wish it had been more of a courtroom drama and focus on the terrible aspects of what the company had done.
Unlike Kevin, I don't think the movie was necessarily racist in its omission of black people. In fact, how do you know that black farmers were not involved on the list of families who were suing?
Regardless, I had difficulty accepting the reactions of some of the people in the story to certain things. Like the girl who got the strip show of by Arthur, willing to take a phone call and acting like it was no big deal. That was a little bizarre.
Still, good blog and I am glad we can agree that the story was a little bit too Hollywood formulaic.