The Interpreter Review
by Ryan Ellis (flickershows AT hotmail DOT com)June 27th, 2005
The Interpreter
reviewed by Ryan Ellis
May 11, 2005
spoilers from paragraph 6 onward
'The Interpreter' is frustrating. To praise it would be dishonest because it's not a particularly original or commanding story. To dump all over it would be unfair because the subject matter is timely, the actors are committed, and the film looks & sounds good. These "tweener" pictures---the ones caught between being pretty good & kinda bad---end up feeling like expensive disappointments. All that money, all that time, and all that talent just sits up there on the screen, lifeless and rather dull.
The biggest frustration of all is just how conventional and even cowardly 'The Interpreter' is. Going into detail regarding that cowardice requires some spoilers, so we'll just get to that issue a little later. For now, let's talk about the film's conventions. Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn co-star. She's an interpreter in the United Nations, working for the dictator-led African country of Matobo (which isn't going to appear on your map because we wouldn't want to offend a REAL country and commit the sin of hurting feelings). When Kidman overhears what sounds like an assassination plot against the tyrranical Matoban president, Zuwanie (Earl Cameron), Secret Serviceman Penn and a miscast Catherine Keener are assigned to investigate. Is the mysterious interpreter lying? Can she be trusted? Who's really in danger?
Of course those questions are eventually answered (at least, I THINK they were) and Hollywood can once again declare victory in the "having their cake and eating it too" war. [But I said we'd get to that later.] Pity that this big production company managed to get permission to shoot inside the U.N. building (a first!) and then does nothing special with the location. Even worse, they've got a terrorist blowing up a bus, yet key cast members escape with only superficial cuts and bruises. And after all the harping about the effectiveness of diplomacy, why resort to bringing out the guns for a Mexican stand-off?
As much as I'm starting to convince myself that 'The Interpreter' is a lame-o dud, at least it stars Sean Penn. I've seen a lot of Penn's work lately (including his terrific performances in Brian De Palma's ridiculously underrated 'Casualties Of War' and 'Carlito's Way') and he continues to show that he's as believable an actor as you'll find. Trouble is, he keeps playing characters similar to this Tobin Keller part in 'The Interpreter'. This time he's playing hero, but he still can't escape those demons---having tragically lost his wife---and doesn't seem to have a life to go back to once this particular job is done. Indeed, director Sydney Pollack might have seen what Penn has been doing for other directors lately and thought, "Me too!"
Penn is never less than believable, though, and I admired his gravitas in this film. Kidman (as Silvia Broome) is okay, but solving the puzzle to her character's past, present, and future is not as compelling as it is futile. Maybe we're supposed to walk out of the theatre and feel baffled by her. Even though the focus is on Silvia from minute one, there might not be more than a few facts about her that we know to be true. Kidman does the best she can with such a closed-off character, even if the very fact that we're kept in the dark about her motives makes her difficult to root for. Perhaps Pollack figured he'd just cast a huge star and expect audiences to sympathize with her every thought and action.
And that, patient reader, brings us to the spoilers. Last warning to leave... Since the whole assassination plot ends up being a ruse to score sympathy points for Zuwanie, where does that leave our shades-of-grey heroine? Holding a gun to the Matoban president's head, as it turns out. This is where the cowardice comes in.
Her entire family has died because of the president's brutal regime. She wants revenge and she seems to be the type who wouldn't hesitate to gun the man down. But here comes Hollywood's Morality Negotiators to talk her down and keep her from becoming a murderer (however justified she may be). "You can't kill him, Nic! You're a big movie star and big stars might THREATEN to kill in cold blood, but they never actually do it! Listen, we'll send Sean in to convince you that the bad guy will be thrown in jail and you don't have to cross the line into Murderville! Have cake, eat too!"
And, really, if it stuns you that she's not just the innocent little interpreter, you don't watch enough movies. After 2 hours of red herrings and surprise developments, the only way this could end is to come down to the 2 stars and the bad guy alone in a room with 2 guns and a motive. Maybe the "wow, I saw that coming from the opening credits" climax shouldn't necessarily derail a film if the acting and the story can really get under your skin. The joy's in the ride, right? If only the scenery hadn't been so familiar. Maybe you'll see more under the surface of these superficially developed characters than I did. Kudos to the actors for trying, but there's just not much to work with.
Would I be crowing about how wonderful 'The Interpreter' is if Kidman had just gone ahead and offed the villain? Would an ending with more guts disguise the fact that the screenplay (by Scott Frank and Steven Zaillian, among others) seems to have a "to do" list and it's ticking off plot points one by one? Possibly. Maybe there's something like that on the cutting room floor. Let's hope for a politically incorrect deleted scene on the DVD where the white woman shoots the tyrannical black guy right in the head. As awful as that sounds, at least it would be consistent with what has come before.
To say hi, write to [email protected] or [email protected]
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
