I felt, in almost every scene, there was at least ONE thing that made me unable to accept the material in “The Interpreter.” Whether it was an off choice from an actor, an over emphasized analogy, a response or a simple action, there was always something to keep the picture off center for me.
For the most part, I enjoyed the picture, but not to where I felt good about paying $7.25 to see it.
My biggest problem with the picture is, director Sydney Pollack (The Firm, Random Hearts) seemed to have a lack of beats in the picture’s lengthier dialogue scenes. Broome and Keller had numerous wordy scenes with so many holes between beats, one could drive a truck through them.
For those who are film buffs and not FILMMAKING buffs, a beat is a dialogue, an action or a camera shot, which COMMANDS a viewer’s attention, as in they CANNOT look away. A boring discussion can be spiced up with beats, blocking–the movements of actors in a scene–and an actor’s response. However, Pollack seemed to allow dialogue scenes to go unchecked. Maybe that’s what directors deal with when working with TWO Academy Award® winning actors.
Anyways, because of this lack of beats, the pacing of the film’s “drama” was very long and, as Brian stated, painful.
I also had a couple of believability problems with the picture, mostly in character backstories. As Brian also said, I couldn’t see Kidman carrying a gun and shooting a small child in the child either. I didn’t buy it.
I also didn’t buy Broome getting hired by the United Nations, after an initial background check, which should’ve uncovered her youth as a revolutionary, especially when she supposedly had a love affair with one of Mottaba’s revolutionary leaders. I think U.N. investigators would’ve easily found that out about her and NOT hired her in the first place, labeling her a risk.
I thought the backstory on Penn’s character was fine, a little cliched. Keller lost a loved one and began to fill the emptiness inside him with Broome. That’s all fine, but as Brian infers, it’s not the usual material for what was marketed as an action picture. Penn’s performance was also fine. A little non-dynamic, unlike his work in “Mystic River,” but for this story, and the pain his character was carrying, it worked okay.
Best thing I liked most about the picture was the production design by Jon Hutman (Something’s Gotta Give). No other picture I’ve seen really made me “feel” the inside of the United Nations building in New York. It was an exciting setting.
I also thought Pollack’s pacing of the bus bomb sequence was masterful. It was exciting, intense and of course sad. It was the picture’s best sequence. However, the run-on climax, or anti-climax I should say, didn’t even come close to living up to the rest of the picture.
With the three screenwriters attached to this picture, being Charles Randolph (The Life of David Gale), Academy Award® nominee Scott Frank (Minority Report) and Oscar® winner Steve Zaillian (Schindler’s List), I would’ve thought this picture’s nuts and bolts would’ve been screwed in tighter. I was wrong, and it seems additional script/film editing was badly needed.
I enjoyed “The Interpreter” more than Brian, but I can’t advise seeing it in the theatres. It’s predictable and slow, and it would probably make a better home DVD rental.
Leave a comment