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

I think I’m Pablo Picasso!

Venom: Let There Be Carnage (2021) (SPOILERS) I get the impression that, whatever it is stalwart Venom fans want from a Venom movie, this iteration isn’t it. The highlight here for me is absolutely the wacky, love-hate, buddy-movie antics of Tom Hardy and his symbiote alter. That was the best part of the original, before it locked into plot “progression” and teetered towards a climax where one CGI monster with gnarly teeth had at another CGI monster with gnarly teeth. And so it is for Venom: Let There Be Carnage . But cutting quicker to the chase.

These are not soda cans you asked me to get for you.

The Devil’s Own (1997) (SPOILERS) Naturally, a Hollywood movie taking the Troubles as a backdrop is sure to encounter difficulties. It’s the push-pull of wanting to make a big meaningful statement about something weighty, sobering and significant in the real world and bottling it when it comes to the messy intricacies of the same. So inevitably, the results invariably tend to the facile and trite. I’m entirely sure The Devil’s Own would have floundered even if Harrison Ford hadn’t come on board and demanded rewrites, but as it is, the finished movie packs a lot of talent to largely redundant end.

Are you, by any chance, in a trance now, Mr Morrison?

The Doors (1991) (SPOILERS) Oliver Stone’s mammoth, mythologising paean to Jim Morrison is as much about seeing himself in the self-styled, self-destructive rebel figurehead, and I suspect it’s this lack of distance that rather quickly leads to The Doors becoming a turgid bore. It’s strange – people are , you know, films equally so – but I’d hitherto considered the epic opus patchy but worthwhile, a take that disintegrated on this viewing. The picture’s populated with all the stars it could possibly wish for, tremendous visuals (courtesy of DP Robert Richardson) and its director operating at the height of his powers, but his vision, or the incoherence thereof, is the movie’s undoing. The Doors is an indulgent, sprawling mess, with no internal glue to hold it together dramatically. “Jim gets fat and dies” isn’t really a riveting narrative through line.

Maybe the dingo ate your baby.

Seinfeld 2.9: The Stranded The Premise George and Elaine are stranded at a party in Long Island, with a disgruntled hostess.

Fifty medications didn’t work because I’m really a reincarnated Russian blacksmith?

Infinite (2021) (SPOILERS) It’s as if Mark Wahlberg, his lined visage increasingly resembling a perplexed potato, learned nothing from the blank ignominy of his “performances” in previous big-budget sci-fi spectacles Planet of the Apes and, er, Max Payne . And maybe include The Happening in that too ( Transformers doesn’t count, since even all-round reprobate Shia La Boeuf made no visible dent on their appeal either way). As such, pairing him with the blandest of journeyman action directors on Infinite was never going to seem like a sterling idea, particularly with a concept so far removed from of either’s wheelhouse.

I can do in two weeks what you can only wish to do in twenty years.

Wrath of Man (2021) (SPOILERS) Guy Ritchie’s stripped-down remake of Le Convoyeur (or Cash Truck , also the working title for this movie) feels like an intentional acceleration in the opposite direction to 2019’s return-to-form The Gentleman , his best movie in years. Ritchie seems to want to prove he can make a straight thriller, devoid of his characteristic winks, nods, playfulness and outright broad (read: often extremely crude) sense of humour. Even King Arthur: Legend of the Sword has its fair share of laughs. Wrath of Man is determinedly grim, though, almost Jacobean in its doom-laden trajectory, and Ritchie casts his movie accordingly, opting for more restrained performers, less likely to summon more flamboyant reflexes.

Five people make a conspiracy, right?

Snake Eyes (1998) (SPOILERS) The best De Palma movies offer a synthesis of plot and aesthetic, such that the director’s meticulously crafted shots and set pieces are underpinned by a solid foundation. That isn’t to say, however, that there isn’t a sheer pleasure to be had from the simple act of observing, from De Palma movies where there isn’t really a whole lot more than the seduction of sound, image and movement. Snake Eyes has the intention to be both scrupulously written and beautifully composed, coming after a decade when the director was – mostly – exploring his oeuvre more commercially than before, which most often meant working from others’ material. If it ultimately collapses in upon itself, then, it nevertheless delivers a ream of positives in both departments along the way.

I’ll look in Bostock’s pocket.

Doctor Who Revelation of the Daleks Lovely, lovely, lovely. I can quite see why Revelation of the Daleks doesn’t receive the same acclaim as the absurdly – absurdly, because it’s terrible – overrated Remembrance of the Daleks . It is, after all, grim, grisly and exemplifies most of the virtues for which the Saward era is commonly decried. I’d suggest it’s an all-time classic, however, one of the few times 1980s Who gets everything, or nearly everything, right. If it has a fault, besides Eric’s self-prescribed “Kill everyone” remit, it’s that it tries too much. It’s rich, layered and very funny. It has enough material and ideas to go off in about a dozen different directions, which may be why it always felt to me like it was waiting for a trilogy capper.

Madam, the chances of bagging an elephant on the Moon are remote.

First Men in the Moon (1964) (SPOILERS) Ray Harryhausen swaps fantasy for science fiction and stumbles somewhat. The problem with his adaptation of popular eugenicist HG Wells’ 1901 novel isn’t so much that it opts for a quirky storytelling approach over an overtly dramatic one, but that it’s insufficiently dedicated to pursuing that choice. Which means First Men in the Moon , despite a Nigel Kneale screenplay, rather squanders its potential. It does have Lionel Jeffries, though.

I’ve crossed the Atlantic to be reasonable.

Dodsworth (1936) (SPOILERS) Prestige Samuel Goldwyn production – signifiers being attaching a reputable director, often William Wyler, to then-popular plays or classical literature, see also Dead End , Wuthering Heights , The Little Foxes , The Best Years of Our Lives , and earning a Best Picture nomination as a matter of course – that manages to be both engrossing and irritating. Which is to say that, in terms of characterisation, Dodsworth rather shows its years, expecting a level of engagement in the relationship between Sam Dodsworth (Walter Huston) and his wayward, fun-loving wife Fran (Ruth Chatterton) at odds with their unsympathetic behaviour.