I very much relate to your interpretation of the ending, and the more I think about it the more I love how it was all so bittersweet. There is a further dimension as well as well I think- in that Michael has finally acknowledged who he is. Throughout the film he is constantly asked "Who are you" or other people ask "Who is Michael Clayton" - and the answers we are given are always vague or clearly incorrect euphemisms("miracle worker", "janitor"). But in his last talk with Karen Crowder Calyton himself says "I'm the guy you buy", and the reason she falls for his subsequent trap is because that statement is true. Up until now Clayton has been the guy you pay to get things done, and this has largely defined him. So when he turns Karen Crowder in to the police he walks away from being that guy, and without any new way of defining himself. I think that too comes into play at the end there. That said the brilliance of the ending's ambivalence is that all of these interpretations are true, and I guess that is what gives the film its multifaceted edge.
Furthermore thank you so much for the link to the Gilroy interview. That was enlightening and answered a few questions I've been wondering - for instance why he chose to depart so drastically from the Bourne books. I'm a big fan of the third Bourne film myself - but I also love the first one immensely. I also adore how the films come full circle - both in story and in visuals. It starts with Bourne in the water and ends with him in the water. Beautifully done.
And a question in general if I may, is it fair to assume that pretty much everbody who comments in this journal studies film in one way or the other? :)
*g* I'm not sure everybody has studied film, but a few of them have - and in general they are a media savvy bunch. At least that's my impression. ;)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-05-18 01:45 pm (UTC)That said the brilliance of the ending's ambivalence is that all of these interpretations are true, and I guess that is what gives the film its multifaceted edge.
Furthermore thank you so much for the link to the Gilroy interview. That was enlightening and answered a few questions I've been wondering - for instance why he chose to depart so drastically from the Bourne books. I'm a big fan of the third Bourne film myself - but I also love the first one immensely. I also adore how the films come full circle - both in story and in visuals. It starts with Bourne in the water and ends with him in the water. Beautifully done.
And a question in general if I may, is it fair to assume that pretty much everbody who comments in this journal studies film in one way or the other? :)
*g* I'm not sure everybody has studied film, but a few of them have - and in general they are a media savvy bunch. At least that's my impression. ;)