|
 |
|
|
| Tuesday, April 26, 2005 |
When thrillers were thrilling
 I long for the day when thrillers actually got the hairs on the back of your neck into a forward and upright position. I long for the time when Sydney Pollack could deliver that cinematic experience. I so very much wanted such a movie experience when the lights dimmed for "The Interpreter."
I'm still waiting.
Don't get me wrong. It wasn't a bad film. It was a good film. The acting was good. The directing was superb. The realism was spot on. That was helped in large part from a carefully negotiated first -- the film was shot inside the actual UN -- and since the film itself is a bit of a snore by the end, I'll tell you about that instead.
As it turned out, the UN is very uptight about filming on their premises. Even Alfred Hitchcock was turned away, and initially so was Sydney Pollack. The production even went to the expense of building sets at a pretty penny. Sadly, they weren't working out, so it was up to Sydney to score a meeting with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan himself. New York mayor Michael Bloomberg (a mensch he is) even coughed up some support in exchange for a deal to use an all New Yorker crew.
The UN finally caved, but shooting was allowed only at night and on weekends. This adds to the movie, I suppose. It's always possible that a regular set would've done just as well, but who knows?
Oh yeah, getting back to the movie. Ultimately it's a procedural drama with less drama and a rather forced bus bombing, and here's where I'll say the film was a missed opportunity. Imagine a film about the United Nations that features threats of trial for war crimes against a head of state, a bus bombing, and a biased internationalist. There's not an Israeli in sight.
I'm not saying the film should've been about Israel. The bus bombing was in New York, not Tel Aviv. But what I am saying is, why didn't this film tackle the subject matter rather than use it as a back drop? I think it's great they shot inside the real UN. Why didn't they tackle the controversies of the real UN?
When Kidman's character says she believes in the UN, the best the script can do is have Penn retort, "It must've been a tough year for you." Why not pit a staunch anti-UN against Kidman? Why not have a genuine exploration of the biases of UN staff and diplomats that colors their actions and undermines the ideals Kidman keeps spouting about? Instead we merely have Kidman's biases laid out bit-by-bit as a means to make Penn doubt her, and explain her rather odd end-of-film antics.
If you're going to make a movie about the UN, and you're going to shoot it in the actual building, then you've got an opportunity to do something brilliant with cinema that audiences will actually see. Sydney, what were you thinking?
And yes, it might have been more compelling to do such a substantive film if instead of inventing an entire African country and an entire African language (I suppose they didn't actually invent an entire language) they took the poster country for UN controversy and bias -- Israel.
But what do I know? It's got Nicole Kidman waxing poetic and Sean Penn looking forever distraught. There's even international intrigue. But don't expect a thick steak. This is more those bites of Mongolian beef on a toothpick offered by your local food court Chinese restaurant.
That's the best international reference I could come up with, and it's about on par with the best this film could do.
|
|
|
|
