|
|
Sunday, June 12, 2005
The Interpreter: Ten Point Review
- Nicole Kidman is getting even more beautiful; this is something I wouldn’t have imagined possible. Even the g-phrase was somewhat distracted at times.
- Sean Penn, on the other hand, is having some serious issues with the passage of time. And his hair is terrifying.
- Kidman is spectacular throughout, Penn is occasionally brilliant and infrequently bland. An odd performance for someone who I have tremendous respect for (as an actor).
- Somewhat typical movie, pretty well done, but nothing earth shattering.
- You’ll play spot-the-plot-twist about midway through the film. There are very few surprises if you pay even the least amount of attention…
- ...Which is why seeing movies with particularly stupid and loud people in the chairs right behind you trends towards making the movie-going experience not as good as it might otherwise be. Obvious, no? Well, the point is this: if you are that person, or if you are dating that person, could you do us a favor and please stay home? Thanks.
- The ruler of Matobo (a fictional country with which the director and writers saddle all of their pet notions about Africa and the United Nations) seems to be based on Robert Mugabe, although you could probably make a case for any other leader who was expected to be the salvation of black, post-colonial Africa. Unfortunately, these leaders were mostly revealed to be plutocrats and thugs.
- How is it that the only well-drawn African character in the whole movie was Kidman’s Silvia? Every other black African character was given little in the way of screen time and depth, with the closest to well-rounded being the few minutes given to both the current president of Matobo and a separate scene on a bus with one of his political enemies. Literally, though, each of them is only afforded a few minutes and a few lines.
- This is a political thriller for the naive. The overt messages are so prototypical of the UN’s true believers that it can’t escape the charge of being preachy. Guns are bad, vengeance is bad, diplomacy and the UN may be slower than violence, but they are so gosh darned better. There is no nuance; there is only The Message.
I wonder if the hundreds of thousands of dead in Rwanda and Sudan buy into The Message. Or starving oppressed in Zimbabwe and the Congo? Or maybe they would have preferred (and would still prefer) a more active and resolute UN. Of course, the 100% lily-freakin’ white audience was terribly impressed, although how many of them could even name South Africa’s president is open to question. I conclude that it is easier to be impressed with the UN if you don’t actually pay much attention to world affairs, contenting yourself with sound bites and the Cause of the Day.
- Which brings me to my biggest irritant, from a very selfish point of view. Is Africa the new Tibet? Or is it a lovely, bundled series of Tibets just waiting to be exploited for Hollywood’s Cause of the Day? Today’s flavor is Rwanda. Tomorrow it may be the Congo. Next week, perhaps it will be Niger. And then, when consciousness has been raised (whatever, functionally, that means), but nothing has been solved, all of the terribly brave stars can pat each other on the back. They can feel so proud of all their good works and hand wringing, and they can go home to their next cause (Venezuela?) while the people of Kenya and Uganda still struggle with poverty and corruption. Don’t get me wrong: I don’t expect these movie stars and musicians to actually solve the problem, it’s just that their arrogant self-congratulation and the flighty nature of their interest both seem so sad to me.
But if Africa is the new Tibet, then this movie is just a symbol of the stars’ fleeting fascination.
|
 Subscribe
Search
|
(0)