I DO NOT DISLIKE CLOONEY !!! O Brother is at the top of my best list, he's great in UITA, Ides Of March, Three Kings, and .. well that's it but i don't dislike him, he's just not had a lot of luck. Like Hail Caesar or Tomorrowland, he wasn't bad, but the scripts & dialogue were just not great.
My only bias in Michael Clayton is that i don't like gamblers, so that puts me off the character immediately.
But - to try to reply to both at the same time - Clayton is an emotionally weak character, in a role that clashes with being emotionally weak.
Also note that there already is a scene, at the beginning of the film, where he just casually stops his car to go idk, talk to some horses. The same horses as in the later scene, in a film that has no supernatural elements otherwise. Who is he grieving for, his brother?
I am absolutely not a fan of emotionally weak characters; but i can accept this in a role that fits with that characteristic, for example as in Film Blue, or in Kramer vs Kramer.
If you recall, that vastly-lauded KvK film is about Kramer 1 (Dustin Hoffman) and Kramer 2 (Meryl Streep) where K1 is clearly a loving father and K2 is clearly a bitch, but K1 does not have the strength of character to try to CRUSH K2, while K2 absolutely does - and is the villain of the story.
This is where a human weakness works *with* the character role, where a "flaw" is a relatable trait that strengthens the character.
it's not the Clayton's weaknesses are bad because they are weaknesses, it that - in my magnificent opinion of really very smart guy - they clash with his role.
Scrooge is great because he is a miser; the flaw works with the role. But if you take, idk Spiderman and make him a miser, the flaw does not work with the role. Now in real life, anyone can be a miser, or a sadist, or a megalomaniac, but in cinema, theatre and storytelling, certain combinations work better than others.
Even though i'm basically like, a godlike human computer, of genius beyond mere human comprehension, this may surprise you,
i did not invent the concept of stock characters.
And while you are certainly free to try to find new stock characters, it's not something easy to do.
Just to be 100% clear, a stock character is a character that, through the years and centuries of theatre,
has been found to resonate particularly with audiences, regardless of where, or when.
They are more "discovered" than invented, mmk? So the old sage, the clever fool, the buffoon, the devious servant, the absent-minded professor, etc..these are all recognized as viable stock characters. It is known, that if enough traits are are put into a new character in a new story, to match one of these, then this new character will "work" with the audience.
And all these stock characters can have additional traits, a writer is certainly free to explore new combinations, but there is no guarantee they will work. You certainly can have characters who are weakened by grief, but it's generally a good idea to attach these traits to a character where they augment the depth of said character, not clash with it; if you try to write "sad, grieving WEALTHY CEO" then the character will probably not work well - they did that with Kevin Spacey's character in Margin Call and his character is shit, but fortunately he is only briefly in the film and for the most part he just forgets he's actually grieving when he has any dialogue.
You can't take the fatherly love and devotion of Mrs Doubtfire and give it to the ship captain in Jaws, it doesn't fucking work, ok?
Can i remove this character train from this character and NOT affect the story? If the answer is yes, or "yes with minor rewrite changes" that you got a bad character. Can you remove the overconfidence from Tom Cruise's McDeere character and still have the same story? Can you make Ted Kramer into a fighter and still have KvK ? Can you take the obsession and loss of touch with reality from Travis Bickle and still have Taxi Driver?
I dont think Michael Clayton is shit, but i don't think it's a film worth recommending. There are other films that have done the same better, and when you've seen Page 8, The Pelican Brief, All The President's Men, The Firm, Erin Brockovich, Philadelphia, Ides Of March, Up In The Air, you really dont need to watch Michael Clayton.
Here is my summary without omissions of the film.
Michael Clayton is an employee in a law firm. One of his senor colleagues becomes remorseful of having defended a corporation who knew they were selling a dangerous chemical. After the colleague is murdered by the company
[ok so Tilda Swinton is a lawyer for the company, not for the firm, though they work together in the same defense counsel]
Michael Clayton has a change of heart, and manages to get the counsel to confess to the murder so they are arrested.
You don't need Clayton to be remorseful. You don't need him struggling with his role as a ruthless fixer. PROBABLY if he was a tormented character i.e. if he was capable of being ruthless, but CHOOSES to be good, that would actually improve the character. You don't need the grief of a failed life to force his hand, because the best character arcs are those borne out of self-determinations. I want to come with you to Alderaan. I want to learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi, like my father.
The "i was a good employee and you betrayed me, now i'm gonna fuck you up" has been done a million times, Paycheck does this wonderfully, though most people hate that film.
Anyway, i'm ok that we disagree. At least we're having a sensible conversation about it. I am not the most sensitive man about things like grief, i dislike characters that are caught in the current, not in charge of their own life. I like the blonde, white-horse riding hero that kills the dragon, the asskicking "what if EVIL GUY was GOOD?" anti-hero, i like stories that end in triumph and glory, and don't like the misery of ordinary life, because i already got too much of my own.