Skip to main content

Do you know that the leading cause of death for beavers is falling trees?


The Interpreter
(2005)

Sydney Pollack’s final film returns to the conspiracy genre that served him well in both the 1970s (Three Days of the Condor) and the 1990s (The Firm). It also marks a return to Africa, but in a decidedly less romantic fashion than his 1985 Oscar winner. Unfortunately the result is a tepid, clichéd affair in which only the technical flourishes of its director have any merit.

The film’s main claim to fame is that Universal received permission to film inside the United Nations headquarters. Accordingly, Pollack is predictably unquestioning in its admiration and respect for the organisation. It is no doubt also the reason that liberal crusader Sean Penn attached himself to what is otherwise a highly generic and non-Penn type of role. When it comes down to it, the argument rehearsed here of diplomacy over violent resolution is as banal as they come. That the UN is infallible moral arbiter of this process is never in any doubt. The cynicism of ‘70s Pollack (Condor) has given way to rather simplistic preaching; The Constant Gardener, released in the same year as The Interpreter, has much more bite (even if it ultimately opts for a pat resolution).

The Interpreter’s opening sequence, however, promises much that the rest of the picture fails to deliver on. In the (fictional; this isn’t the sort of film that’s willing to offend anybody) Republic of Matobo two individuals investigating atrocities committed by President Zuwanie are murdered by child soldiers. The contrast with the idyllic charm of Out of Africa must have occurred to Pollack, but he spends the rest of the film in New York piling unlikely incident upon unlikely incident.

We learn that the UN is considering bringing charges against him, as a consequence of which Zuwanie is due to put his case to the General Assembly. Nicole Kidman’s UN interpreter Silvia Broome, a Matoban national, overhears an assassination plot against the President when she goes to retrieve her bag late one night. She reports the incident and the Secret Service assign Tobin Keller (Sean Penn) to the case. Keller is sceptical of her story, convinced she is not telling the whole truth, but it soon becomes clear that her life is now under threat.

There is a lack of coherence to the manner in which the tale unfolds, and the secrets that Silvia holds up her sleeve. There’s an enormous coincidence at the heart of the tale that makes a lot more sense when you learn of the extensive rewrites that Pollack requested (Scott Frank, Steven Zaillian and David Rayfiel all took screenplay credits, over the story ones for Martin Stellman and Brian Ward). It turns a plot development that makes some degree of sense in terms of character and back-story into a huge contrivance that no amount of suspicion on the part of Keller can staunch.

It doesn’t help that both characters are lent utterly ham-fisted backgrounds. Silvia’s is unbelievable in part because Kidman is so miscast; you can’t imagine someone of her pinched fragility consorting with a guerilla group (which is another example of the script’s pile-up of laughable artifice). Keller is weighed down with tiresomely rote baggage that Penn is unable to emote through convincingly. And the two actors have zero chemistry, making for the chilliest lead performances by a couple of Oscar winners in recent memory.

Their dialogue is utterly corny too, trotting out the likes of “You think that not getting caught in a lie is the same thing as telling the truth”. None of the supporting players have large enough roles to distract from the central vacuum. Catherine Keener is forgettable as Keller’s partner, while Pollack himself is in a couple of scenes as his boss.

So it’s left to the director to instill some drama into the proceedings. The highlight is a surveillance sequence that culminates in a bombing. It is expertly
constructed, although it does leave you rather questioning the deductive skills of the Secret Service (I guess the filmmakers weren’t in thrall to them, only the UN).

The UN aspect allows Pollack to wear a false mantle of prestige; The Interpreter is “about something”. But, even given the assumption that it is an institution to be venerated, the film offers no insights into its workings. The presence of a made-up African nation only further stakes out the piece as inconsequential. But most damaging, since the rest is essentially window dressing if the vehicle has a good motor, is that as a thriller this is consistently hackneyed and one-note. Add to that its toothlessness and you’re left with a less than illustrious note on which to finish a career in movie directing.

**1/2

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

You’re easily the best policeman in Moscow.

Gorky Park (1983) (SPOILERS) Michael Apted and workmanlike go hand in hand when it comes to thriller fare (his Bond outing barely registered a pulse). This adaptation of Martin Cruz Smith’s 1981 novel – by Dennis Potter, no less – is duly serviceable but resolutely unremarkable. William Hurt’s militsiya officer Renko investigates three faceless bodies found in the titular park. It was that grisly element that gave Gorky Park a certain cachet when I first saw it as an impressionable youngster. Which was actually not unfair, as it’s by far its most memorable aspect.

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.