Can anyone who has seen Michael Clayton tell me...

[The Fake Shemp]

... the significance of the horses?  They had to mean something, but I am kind of at a loss.  It was a fun flick, but it really had a hard time struggling with a theme.  There were like, fifty of them.

[bagofeyes]

I think it means that wild horses couldn't drag him away, wild horses, he'll ride them someday

[CajoleJuice]

Yea, I liked how they showed that whole part twice.

Oh wait, no I didn't.

[The Fake Shemp]

 

I just hate symbolism for the sake of symbolism.  It reeks of, "Hey, you could interpret these wild horses as many different things - we should just put them in there just because!"  It's so edgy.

Like, the film works best when it acknowledges it's just a mature, suspenseful version of Erin Brokovich.  But it struggles maintaining a consistent identity.  Yes, in the end, it's ultimately about Michael Clayton's redemption, but it seems almost as a sideshow or afterthought to the dozen or so themes Gilroy tries to put into place.  Tom Wilkinson's character was the most compelling in the film.  Did he even get an Oscar nod for this?  If not, what a sham.

[CajoleJuice]

Yea he did. And that broad won for Best Supporting Actress.

And I don't know what the horses meant.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

yes, Wilkenson got a nomination, he didn't have a chance against Chigurh, but at least he got a good night out for it.

about the horses...

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Crazy lawyer scribbled a picture that was veeeeeeeery similar to the scene Micheal gets out of his car to view.  Its clear that he already suspects that there are bad people following him, but its only due to his curiosity about observing the horsies that he didn't get blowed up.

[close]

Man, I loved Tilda Swenton in that movie, she deserved to win man.

[TVC15]

I just hate symbolism for the sake of symbolism.  It reeks of, "Hey, you could interpret these wild horses as many different things - we should just put them in there just because!"  It's so edgy.

Willco:  only likes movies that he doesn't have to interpret!  Explains why he dislikes Kubrick.  AMBIGUITY BAD! ME WANT MOVIES WHERE ME NOT HAVE TO THINK!

[The Fake Shemp]

Well, I'm glad Wilkinson at least got some recognition for his performance.  Tilda Swinton won for her performance?  That's laughable - she plays the same character in every film.  Got a role for an androgynous, power hungry and cold hearted character?  Tilda Swinton will fill that role and apparently win you an Oscar!

I'm not going to even creatively respond to your lame troll.  I don't mind interpreting art that is left ambiguous, but fits within context of the piece.  The horses seem out of place.  Forcing symbolism for the sake of symbolism is just lame, Keith.  No bones about it.

HyperZone, I guess that makes sense.  So the horses were related to the dumb book his son was talking about to Wilkinson's character?

[TVC15]

How is it symbolism for the sake of symbolism, exactly?  I believe such a quote implies that the symbolism was only chosen because it was, well, symbolic of something, which is the purpose of symbolism.  That is like saying BACON FOR THE SAKE OF BACON is bad.  It is a non sequitor.  If a symbol is chosen because it's a symbol, what is the fault?

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm talking about forcing symbolism in a film just to have symbolism, not because it actually symbolizes anything.  If you don't think this occurs, then that's a bit scary.  You're just playing devil's advocate here and that's cute - but bringing up Kubrick in a discussion about MICHAEL CLAYTON is a bit much.  Watch the movie.  It's not in the same ballpark.

[TVC15]

I'm talking about forcing symbolism in a film just to have symbolism, not because it actually symbolizes anything.  If you don't think this occurs, then that's a bit scary.  You're just playing devil's advocate here and that's cute - but bringing up Kubrick in a discussion about MICHAEL CLAYTON is a bit much.  Watch the movie.  It's not in the same ballpark.

I own Michael Clayton.  While I wouldn't put it on the level of quality as a Kubrick, I don't see what's so difficult about what you are describing.  It's interpretive, probably by design.  That's not a problem.

[CajoleJuice]

spoiler (click to show/hide)

My problem is with the whole "flashback." It added nothing, except for that scene where he's talking to that couple at the house.

[close]

[The Fake Shemp]

The horses are apparently not even interpretive according to HyperZone.  His answer makes the most sense, but just putting horses in there would've been distinguished mentally-challenged. 

"Wild horses mean so many things - oh, how the audience will have fun interpreting what they mean!  I don't even know what they mean!"

If you honestly think that kind of junk is acceptable, then you probably think Marty McFly's crazy art films are masterworks!

[The Fake Shemp]

I think the point of having it non-linear like that, Cajole, is that the audience is unaware of who is exactly after Michael Clayton.  You could theoretically have two or three different factions responsible for the events in the beginning of the film, without knowing the information that audience receives until the hour and a half mark.

[TVC15]

The horses are apparently not even interpretive according to HyperZone.  His answer makes the most sense, but just putting horses in there would've been distinguished mentally-challenged. 

So basically, Will only understands because someone else was able to give him what sounds like a solid answer?

"Wild horses mean so many things - oh, how the audience will have fun interpreting what they mean!  I don't even know what they mean!"

If you honestly think that kind of junk is acceptable, then you probably think Marty McFly's crazy art films are masterworks!

I'm sorry you don't understand how to form interpretations without being force fed things.  I bet Rashomon was a nightmare for you.

[CajoleJuice]

I think the point of having it non-linear like that, Cajole, is that the audience is unaware of who is exactly after Michael Clayton.  You could theoretically have two or three different factions responsible for the events in the beginning of the film, without knowing the information that audience receives until the hour and a half mark.

Watching the chase actually taking place was zzzzzzzzzzzz

on a completely unrelated note: two emails for Vicodin just showed up in my gmail...and not in my spam folder...wtf

[The Fake Shemp]

So basically, Will only understands because someone else was able to give him what sounds like a solid answer?

Yes, because random wild horses are kind of distinguished mentally-challenged in terms of interpretative symbolism.  I don't bite on random crap.

I'm sorry you don't understand how to form interpretations without being force fed things.  I bet Rashomon was a nightmare for you.

This really doesn't make much sense as an argument against unnecessary and forced symbolism.  What you're arguing for would allow me to make abstract, meaningless films just to be abstract.  Because, even if it's ridiculous and out of context, symbolism is art!

[The Fake Shemp]

on a completely unrelated note: two emails for Vicodin just showed up in my gmail...and not in my spam folder...wtf

U/North wants you!

spoiler (click to show/hide)

Would you hit sexy, sweaty Tilda?

[close]

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

I would.  Or did nobody else see Young Adam?

and as for symbolism of the pretty pretty ponies

spoiler (click to show/hide)

They kinda are and they kinda aren't.  There's a clear, plot-fueled reason Micheal gets out of the car and doesn't die.  But you could also interpret it as him waking up to the truth bombs his buddy and son were dropping on him.  Either way, he's saved, literally, by those paying attention to those who care for him.

[close]

[TVC15]

I don't understand how it is, as Willco says, "forced symbolism."  What he describes happens at THE BEGINNING OF THE MOVIE, thus the parsing of the events should be on the viewer's mind as he watches the film.  Since Willco is unable to understand films without either spandex superheroes or shittily-edited CGI action sequences, Michael Clayton makes a giant question mark appear over his head. 

At least I don't have to worry about fighting over Fanny and Alexander with him.

[The Fake Shemp]

Gross.  She has a boy's body!

Oh, I did some research on the fancy Interwebs, HyperZone.  I guess you're right - that depiction of the horses comes from the book his son was reading.  Which he relayed to Tom Wilkinson's character (who was obviously taken with the book).  I feel kind of stupid that I didn't catch on to that.

[The Fake Shemp]

I concede it's not forced symbolism, because it's not even symbolism, apparently.  If it weren't for the connection to the book his son was talking to Wilkinson's character about, it would've been forced symbolism.  Why?  Because symbolism is supposed to mean something - not something half-baked and forced into a screenplay open to ambigious interpretation that doesn't fit within the context of the film.

I'm sure my next screenplay, roughly ninety minutes of people eating different pieces of fruit (what does each fruit mean?!), will be a smash hit with you, though.

[TVC15]

The book is not the movie.  Welcome to movies.

And yes, Will, what you described there is such an accurate descriptor of the things I enjoy.

[HyperZoneWasAwesome]

Ah yeah!  I fucking love love fruit eating scenes.

[The Fake Shemp]

I'm not sure what you meant by the last comment, Keith.

I will breakdown my grievance with this thought process, so you don't think I'm trying to be condescending (which you are), but rather create an actual discussion.  If Michael Clayton had a more coherent narrative and an actual theme (instead of the handful that are presented to us at any given point), having something like wild horses as symbolism that is open to different interpretations would be okay.  Because there would be a frame of reference; it would fit within the context of the story.  We could go, "Hey, this movie is about this, so the horses might be about this.  Or that."  Or any number of things. 

Whereas if a filmmaker of Kubrick's talent gives us symbolism that is ambiguous, he has given us a theme or a point of reference - even if that particular object or sequence could mean many things.  But it means something within the movie.  In the end, he or she has put that symbol in his film for a purpose.  Symbolism without purpose is just abstract crap.  I'm not knocking interpretive art, but I am knocking ostentatious writing thinly veiled as symbolism.

So who is at fault here?  Is it half-baked symbolism without purpose, just a coincidental plot device or something more?  I think it all boils down to mediocre writing in this particular discussion.  Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that the wild horses are meant to be interpreted as something more than just a coincidental plot device, then I argue that the script doesn't allow it to be meaningful.  Michael Clayton is not 2001. 

[Eric P]

there was a picture just like that in his son's book.

edit: so question answered.

i loved tilda in this and orlando is very different from this.  watch orlando, but then it's all gender supposition and symbolism so it may drive you up the wall.  (the book is better anyway)