George Clooney is NOT Michael Clayton

Tweet

By: Roxanna Bina

IFQ sits down with George Clooney during the Toronto International Film Festival as he promotes his latest film Michael Clayton. Clooney opens up about corporate America corruption, Darfur and independent film.

IFQ: In Michael Clayton, there seems to be a theme that the dollar is more valuable than human life. Today there’s an extensive investment in countries that perform genocide, such as Sudan, Darfur and China. Did you draw from your own passion for human rights and human life while playing the role of Michael Clayton?

George Clooney: I grew up in a family that was always involved in some way. My mother was a mayor and my father ran for Congress, so I’ve always been involved politically and socially in issues. Those always weigh on another part of my life. It didn’t really inform much of what I was doing. I mean, Tony (Gilroy) won’t really want to talk about things that he showed me before he started, but there are actual law documents. There were actual interoffice memos of companies that were literally saying from one department to the other: If you recall this it’s going to cost $300 million dollars or if you don’t, it’ll kill 300 people a year and the class action suit will cost $300,000 and you’ll save this many people’s lives. Those were real documents that were passed around. And those documents informed how I would play the part because you could justify it by saying you lay off 30,000 people and maybe 300 die from that. That’s how you justify it. All little, keep the middle. That’s a whole other side of my life that I think is important, but it didn’t inform how I played this part.

IFQ: Why did you want to do Michael Clayton? Was it because it’s a “message” film?

GC: You could take these characters in this story and you could put it into a medical drama or government drama. The truth is it’s about flawed individuals, one of whom comes to the realization that he’s looking for redemption, which is always sort of interesting, and decisions that are made based on your own sort of self-interest and at what point, you know, you keep moving that line of morality forward.

That’s always interesting story-telling. The reason we do these films is because we do suspect corporate America and with good reason. There’s certainly been some between R.J. Reynolds and a couple places.

They’ve done some pretty shady things and required the whistle blower along the way. We do suspect problems at times in law firms. All of those things are very real so I think that’s why it resonated with me.

IFQ: Is it linked in any way to Goodnight, and Good Luck?

GC: No. The truth of the matter is it’s really hard to find a good script in Hollywood. You’d think it’d be easy, but it isn’t. This is a great script. And you read the script and you go, this movie’s got to get made. It’s a well-crafted script and should be made into a movie and they’re not easy to get made in this day and age.

So first and foremost, we wanted to get this film made.

IFQ: In Michael Clayton, there are amazingly biting one-liners that sounded more like George being George and no acting. Did you have any input in some of those one-liners?

GC: No. I’d like to take credit for anything written, but literally, I believe I didn’t veer from a single word.  When a script’s really well-written, it’s actually very easy. The hard part is when they’re not written, you have to find ways to make it work. You have to makeup things. You have to fill in little bits or pieces. I tried to really say this one as it was written because I’ve had that experience a few times. I had it with Scott Frank on Out of Sight. I had it with Joel and Ethan (Coen) on O Brother, Where Art Thou? If it’s a script that’s really well-written, you’re trying to serve the material.

IFQ: Michael Clayton takes a tough look at the legal profession. Are you anticipating any legal problems as a result of the film?

GC: Well, there are five or six lawyers in the world named Michael Clayton that I’ve had letters from.  They’re not thrilled, so I’ll be facing some sort of charges. [Laughs.]

IFQ: What sequence in Michael Clayton touched you the most?

GC: The love scene with Tilda (Swinton). It was so good. During the rehearsals, she’d knock on my trailer, going, “George, let’s rehearse the love scene.” I love watching really good actors at their best. I love watching Tilda in a bathroom stall, sort of falling apart, which I saw yesterday. No, there’s something really beautiful about watching characters who are seemingly in control, really not in control and learning a lot about them. I love watching Tom (Wilkinson) in the scene in the alley because he’s so simple and so good. Those are the scenes that touch me. I’ll tell you someone else people don’t talk enough about, Sydney Pollack is a really good actor.

IFQ: It’s well-known you took a pay cut to do this role, so did that entitle you to tweak your character at all?

GC: No, I didn’t tweak anything. Tony wrote a great part. In the last eight films, I’ve been paid for two. It’s not like you’re going to get rich off The Good German or Goodnight, and Good Luck or Syriana. You do them because you want to get the movies made. It’s okay. I do alright. But no, it doesn’t allow me any special leeway. Trust me. Tony may be a first-time director, but he’s an adult and there was no need manipulating him. I promise you that. I tried. [Laughs.]

IFQ: Director Tony Gilroy said that you protected this film. In what way did you do that as an executive producer?

GC: I think it’s important to point out, but sometimes it gets lost in the translation; executive producer of the film is not producing the film. An executive producer’s job is to help knock your way through roadblocks. My job was to help with whatever the filmmaker’s vision was, to make sure that it gets realized in whatever way possible.

IFQ: What was it like making Michael Clayton with Tony Gilroy?

GC: He’s also edited, like good filmmakers that I’ve worked with in the past, Soderbergh, the Coen brothers. It was edited in his head and on paper in many ways before we started. He had a lot of time to prep. It wasn’t this indulgent thing either. It wasn’t a first-time director who’s collecting a bunch of footage and then getting into an editing room and saying, “Okay, let’s find the movie.” This is a movie that was so well-prepared. It was so well-done from the very beginning. It was like working with an old friend.

IFQ: Right now, we’re living in a celebrity obsessed society and it’s hard for movie-goers to distinguish the actor from the character. Does that influence the types of roles you choose?

GC: I’m celebrity obsessed. [Laughs.] In all fairness, if you think about movie stars, they don’t really exist anymore. They sort of stopped because of television. Movie stars like Clark Gable, Spencer Tracy and Bogart, basically played themselves in all those movies. We knew them as that. There was Laurence Olivier who played a lot of characters, but we didn’t take to him as much as we took to Spencer Tracy or Clark Gable, Cary Grant or Gregory Peck. In a way, we’re able to break out from that a little bit more. The unfortunate thing is I think you’re demystified because they know more about your life because there are so many outlets. But in a way, you’re sort of set free because there’s always going to be an awful lot of celebrities out there sucking up the celebrity air that aren’t really doing anything. There’s a bunch of them that haven’t done anything and are famous. That creates a vacuum, in a way.

IFQ: Since you are in Toronto, does Canada’s policy towards Darfur meet with your expectations? Why or why not?

GC: Well, it has. For the most part, they’re not invested from doing too much business there. It’s a tricky time right now because China’s finally stepping up a little bit. We’ve got some real movement for the first time in two years. I’d rather have people talking even if you don’t like them and you think they’re unsafe, which I do. France has been incredibly effective right now as they are also on the Iran issue. We’re in a position right now where we actually for the first time have a shot at a peace treaty among, not just the government part, but with all of the warring parties. We have a chance. It’s not a very good [chance], but it’s the first chance we’ve had. Most of the countries involved have done a very good job in dealing with the companies that invest in this event. So yes, they have and they’ve done a very good job.

IFQ: Are there many film scripts about Darfur? Do you get to see most of them?

GC: Yes. The truth is it’s very difficult, though. You can’t be topical in these films because it takes you two years for something to happen, to write the script and shoot it and get it out. Usually, it’s a little late by the time it comes out. Unfortunately, it’s not late on this because it’s lasted much longer than it should have. Usually, you find that preachy movies about anything can be too strident and you try to deflect and not go directly at it. Unfortunately, most of the scripts you get are sort of a direct, very strident kind of piece and they’re not entertainment. I find that if you’re going to do that, then do a documentary. If you’re going to do a film to make entertainment, do a City of God which was a wonderful film. Find a way to make it entertaining, and I don’t mean happy entertaining. Make a film or go make a documentary.