Talk:Michael Clayton

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Controversy and Rumors

I believe that there should be some mention of the strangeness of the release of this film. I was made aware of it watching the YouTube review from "Reel Geezers" where it is mentioned in passing that the non descriptive name "Michael Clayton" may have been chosen to detract attention from the film (wouldn't "The Janitor" have been better?). It must have been brought up elsewhere as well. Also, the movie was pushed from small theaters to a much wider release within a much shorter period than the norm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.117.10 (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Shouldn't this page be moved to "Michael Clayton" and have that article go to "Michael Clayton (American football player)"? This film is probably more notable than some nobody receiver on the Bucs. -albrozdude 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add to it, don't delete it

This summary of the film is well written, like it was written by somebody working on the script. I don't see what problem there is with the "tone" of the writing except the mention of the swear word. The film is quite good and deserves a more complete article. Get working, y'all.Markemory 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most plot summaries on wikipedia seem very complete, often containing spoilers. The old plot summary just should have been cleaned up and had a spoilers tag. This new plot summary reveals less information than the movie's trailer

The summary here is absolutely TERRIBLE. It goes into great detail and then summarizes the whole movie in 3 sentences. It goes from the breakdown, Clayton being assigned the case, and then the end. It is horrible and needs to be fixed immediately.

I restored the older, completer version. There was no claim that it was a copyright violation.--Patrick 14:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Schools

Is the film based on a true story? Just wondering why the Michael Clayton character is specifically mentioned as a graduate of St. John's and Fordham, since neither of these schools have the "brand name" cachet of, say, Harvard or whatnot. Wl219 17:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Fordham is consistently ranked as a top-20 Law school, so I personally disagree about the "brand name theory" (even though I did not personally goto Fordham) and the character is a New Yorker. He father and brother are NYPD. Maybe the writers just wanted to keep him "true" to his New York "roots." He's tough, gritty and has to do all of the sh@t work. Dantali (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's based on anything. As far as schools go, you'd be surprised. Most influential people don't go to Harvard, and many don't go to Ivy League schools at all. Dick Cheney, for example, went to the University of Wyoming of all places. His (rather famous) daughter went to Colorado College. Larry Page (founder of google) got his Bachelor's Degree from the University of Michigan. Many people who attend Ivy League schools never make much of themselves.
The implication I see in that background is that he's a guy from a working-class/lower middle-class background in a blue-chip white-shoe corporate firm that probably would have more than its share of Ivy League superstars, emphasizing his "outsider" status. The St. John's/Fordham background makes a lot of sense for an NYC cop's son turned prosecutor.

BTW, I noticed

Davis Polk & Wardwell, my father's old firm, got thanked in the credits. Were their midtown offices used for the firm's office in the film? Definitely Sydney Pollack's must have been one of theirs ... the location seems right. If so, it would be the second film to use a DPW office (though not the current one) as a location after Oliver's Story (the Love Story sequel). Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Fordham is a very good law school and has a very good reputation among lawfirms in NYC. Don't sell it short.

As for the origin of the film, Gilroy, the writer and director, claims that he was told a story about a young NYC law firm associate who happened upon a smoking gun document during a document review and buried it, allowing the firm's client to win their lawsuit - subsequently, this associate was immediately made partner at this very large law firm, the youngest partner in the firm's history...from this "story", Gilroy says he came up with the idea for the film. The story, IMHO, is BS, as such a secret would not be a secret for very long and the other side would learn about it and indictments would have been soon handed down and no attorney at that firm who wished to avoid prison would tell such a story to a film writer.

Gilroy also has said that while he was working on the film The Devil's Advocate, he was wondering about the "behind the scenes" work that goes on at law firms and wanted to explore that as a topic in a film.--Davidwiz (talk) 06:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could see that happening, but not if the associate got made partner immediately afterwards ... that would look awful suspicious. Daniel Case (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D8=D

The Three Horses

The review makes no mention that the reason Michael Clayton stops by the side of the road to look at the three horses standing between two trees is because he saw that exact image inside the book his son has read and wanted him to read (and also thru a phone conversation Michael's friend Arthur had also read, it is inside Arthur's loft that Michael finds a copy of the book and while flipping thru it for clues comes upon that image). It was luck, but also because thematically Michael was thus "saved" by his son in a way, since at that point of the story Michael was likely fed up with his existence and how his life has turned out, but seeing those horses reminded him of his love for his family and his son's innocence and probably helped put the chaotic past few days into perspective for him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.181.134.212 (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that, briefly.--Patrick 10:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Without a source on this, that's
original research. I didn't figure it out until I read this. Frankly I thought it meant that he was really a replicant the whole time. Daniel Case (talk) 23:43, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Interpretated stuff! But marvellous story-lining. Michael climbing out of his car, just to approach three horses and by this unmotivated' action, saving his own live. Strange or instincfull, a citoyen reveals his roots, being a cowboy like anybody else in amerika is. Horses mean you have to stop and talk to them, otherwise something bad will happen.HE#s in contact with his subconsciousness._ and pardon me, I haven't seen him throwing his phone and papers into the burning car. He needs his phone lateron for

the heart-coup.Fabulous recipients?!--88.77.205.178 (talk) 13:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clayton's debt to Organized Crime

I was confused in the movie, and see no reference to the situation here, by Clayton's debt to Organized Crime. The plot does explain that he setup a bar as a way to provide retirement/alternative income, etc, and it also explains that his brother who ran the bar was an alcoholic who ran the bar into the ground. But why did he end up owing $75k to Organized Crime? Was this introduced to show that he was 'on the fringe of the law'? Steerpike58 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He took his brother's debt on to protect him. The associate explains to him that the debt is not his.98.240.67.27 (talk) 18:20, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic Disparity

I noticed that there was a large geographical disparity in the movie. Clayton's car gets blown up in

Nanuet, NY, in front of a shop called "Michael's Tuxedos" (41.097412, -74.012079) in the Rockland Plaza. The name of the store is not known by the audience, but as a local resident, I know the scene's location and name. The two locations are 35 miles apart, and that is a long way to walk. -wjs23 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.35.213 (talk) 03:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Interesting, but this page is for discussions about the film's article. What you observed likely falls within the realm of
artistic licence, a fairly common practice in fiction, especially movies.
Jim Dunning | talk 05:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I added a picture of the Moodna Viaduct, the railroad bridge in question, and since I live in the area I could probably get a picture of the house, too. I was amused at the direction in which he runs away ... he'd have to be climbing over Schunemunk Mountain.

Actually, what should be poinnted out is that the hit men see Clooney's car explode from what looks like Orrs Mills Road near Jackson Avenue on one side of the Moodna Creek valley, yet it would be a very long and complicated drive, much more than shown in the scene, for the hit men to have lost him and gotten over there in the time suggested. Daniel Case (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article have a picture of a bridge? The car gets blown up on a road on the side of the grassy hill with the horses...am I missing something here? скоморохъ 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that was what I had available at the time (it's used in the other articles on the bridge itself). That view is actually similar to the view the two hit men have. The site of the explosion would be at the very back of that frame.
Just yesterday I went out with my son to the actual locations used. Since it's late winter like when the film was shot, and it was near dusk, we will have some images more like those in the actual movie. When I get around to uploading them, anyway. Daniel Case (talk) 19:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Decided to just go ahead and put them in today. Now do you see the scene? Daniel Case (talk) 20:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional sources

1

2

3

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do the 3 separate sections mean? Why are there 3 numbered sections? Does it mean something? Why are these headlines distincted by sections separately? Is there any reason? I can't figure it out but am interested to know. THANKS 76.254.86.157 (talk) 22:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it's just my way of breaking up the batch of headlines into chunks of ten each. That way, it's easier to click [edit] in a certain chunk and strike out a headline that's been used up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4

--J.D. (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HD-DVD release

Since Warner Bros publicly announced that they will choose Blu-Ray exclusively, is this movie still coming out on HD-DVD? --Scuac (talk) 03:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cullen

The actor who plays Michael's brother and NYPD detective is named Sean Cullen. This article links to an article about a Canadian comic with the same name. I noticed the discrepancy, but am not sure what to do about it, so I thought to bring it up here. --Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.64.67 (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Paul. This edit shows how it was fixed (there currently is no Wikipedia article for that particular Sean Cullen, so I de-linked the actor's name).
Jim Dunning | talk 00:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soundtrack article merge proposal

I'm recommending the

Stub and further development is unlikely. I've already inserted the other article's copy into this article and there appears to be no length issue. Discussion is at Talk:Michael Clayton (soundtrack)#Merge_proposal.
Jim Dunning | talk 23:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Method of the murder

How did they kill him? What was it they put in his mouth? Some kind of poison? I thought they injected him, though. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They zap him with some sort of Taser-like weapon which immobilizes him. Then they inject him between the toes with a solution that kills him. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which side was Eden on?!

Something I have not clearly understand. Eden, one of sixhundert laywers in the coopreation Clayton works in, found material against U_north.Did he work for them or the farmers? His break down is constituted on information he got from criminal activities. So he changes sides as a worker for U_north.The shown film material internal discussion and his freak out comes to Cauder to which channels?! The borders aren't that clear.--Matida (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He works for the law firm that is defending UNorth. But over time, the guilt of defending an ostensibly guilty company causes him to crack. It is after this breakdown, when his coworkers begin going through his stuff that they realize that he'd begun building a case against UNorth while at the same time purporting to defend the company. --FilmFan69 (talk) 16:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto comparison is inaccurate and unnecessary

The Plot description says, "In the middle of a crucial deposition involving a class action lawsuit against the firm's largest client, United Northfield (also known as U-North, and possibly a fictional version of Monsanto), an agricultural products conglomerate ...". I'm not sure why Monsanto needs to be mentioned here. I see someone's gone to the trouble to cite this comparison, but one source describes the "connection" as "it is a Monsanto mock-up with Orwellian advertising reminiscent of Chevron’s “Do People Care?” campaign." Leaving out the references to Orwell and Chevron's ad campaign mischaracterizes the source's comparison, and saying "fictional" is not equivalent to "mock-up" and creates the impression the screenwriters/producers are intentionally depicting Monsanto. The other source (Vanity Fair) states, "Still, more than one Web log claims to see similarities between Monsanto and the fictional company “U-North". While Vanity Fair seems a great source at first blush, the journalist is merely referencing what blogs say, which are not considered

reliable sources
. Since neither article makes an explicit comparison between U-North and Monsanto other than they are in the same industry, to paint Monsanto with the U-North cancer brush is inaccurate.

I'm recommending the Monsanto reference be removed.
Jim Dunning | talk 17:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jim Dunning, the more you read about Monsanto, the less Michael Clayton seems fictional. Compare Agent Orange and Roundup! --217.232.75.43 (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An other source: http://www.slate.com/id/2175306/nav/tap3/ : The firm's prize client is U/North, a Monsanto-esque agrochemical corporation nearing the end of a class-action lawsuit that's dragged on for six years over the company's promotion of a cancer-causing weedkiller. --217.232.75.43 (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here. And here. --FilmFan69 (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you FilmFan69, I quote from your first link,
GMOs. But we don’t know, because there’s no way of tracing it!”... I'm so sad for you all, folks, who have to buy food in USA and Canada!--217.232.57.146 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Not to put too much stock in it, but can we be absolutely certain people that are foaming at the mouth when someone/anyone mentions something/anything that could be construed as even remotely critical of the saintly Monsanto company are not on said company's payroll? 82.181.201.82 (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the editor who originally added the Monsanto comment. Granted, I did so without declaring a reliable source, but it just seemed to painfully obvious that U-North was a caricature of Monsanto. Call it original research if you want. - CaptainAmerica (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Realm & Conquest

The plot summary is overall well done, but one flaw is that it omits any mention of "Realm & Conquest," which is critical to understanding the film. The reason Michael gets out of the car to look at the horses is the vista reminds him of the picture he saw in the book in Arthur's apartment. By getting out of the car, of course, he fortuitously avoids getting killed by the bomb. The book and the horses, in effect, save his life. Michael takes the experience to be his "summons" to do the right thing, a concept which was explained in an earlier conversation Henry has with Arthur about the book. It also shows how Henry's moral innocence, derived largely from the book (which serves as his moral compass), is pivotal to his father's physical and moral salvation. The book thus frames the existential context underlying the film and is indispensable to the denouement.-PassionoftheDamon (talk) 22:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Production section POV?

The section of this article labeled "Production" seems dangerously on the verge of POV, if it isn't actually, and furthermore contains indications suggesting that it is lifted directly from promotional materials for the film (present tense quotes, strictly complimentary descriptions, etc.). I'd like to know what others think before attempting a redo of this section.Monkeyzpop (talk) 22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text can be found verbatim on http://www.montebubbles.net/michael_clayton.htm, which seems to have taken it from the old michaelclayton.com promotional website. I've excised the entire section. Uucp (talk) 02:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot section

I've re-inserted the original plot section after it had been mostly deleted and reworded (with no edit summary) by an anon IP. The plot section may indeed be overly long, however a deletion as substantial as what occurred should be discussed here first. ponyo (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenplay development

This should be added, if

WP:RS can be found. This is possible, since the film got an Academy Award nomination for Best Original Screenplay. Were the writer(s) known for any other work? Reify-tech (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Requested move 10 May 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

– The film is the clear

talk) 12:06, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Who played Michael Clayton's brother, Tim/Timmy? 2603:6011:7800:8943:9915:DF1C:760:F80D (talk) 05:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michael_Clayton&oldid=1203991744"