tonight i reveal what i thought of THE INTERPRETER

TS: Director self-cast as, um, director / manipulator / plot pusher v. director self-cast as watcher / observer / drive-by scene filler v. Kevin Smith as movie fulcrum

# Random Hearts (1999)
# Sabrina (1995)
... aka Sabrina (Germany)
# The Firm (1993)
# Havana (1990)

yeee.

What was the general critical consensus on The Birth (speaking of Nicole Kidman)?

http://images.killermovies.com/b/birth/poster.jpg )

it wasn't a bad movie, but flabby. the thriller malarkey, especially the bus scene, was great. the scene of them trying to run nicole's scooter over was a nice nod to '3 days of the condor'. but there were some terrible longeurs which were not improved by the "when talking about africa, play some 'world' music" rule.

also, and i'm not 100% on this, but -- what is the deal with kidman's family? this is basically a film about mugabe, right? he starts in the early 80s as a freedom fighter and ends as a tyrant. kidman started out on his side, packing an AK for the rebel forces. not wanting to generalize, but how many whites did this in the actual history of post-colonial africa? wouldn't it make more sense of nicole's character were a black african woman? or, which would juice it considerably, someone whose family's land had been appropriated by the mugabe guy? and couldn't the trigger for the assassination have been 'relax'?

totally!!

Are there any black actresses with her stature among Hollywood execs (not box office pull or acting ability, just media/rich-white-guy luv)?

i like the idea of a black woman playing nicole kidman

it wasn't a bad movie, but flabby.

So you're saying that if a few pounds were transferred from the script to Nicole's ass, this movie would have been flawless?

To say it's about the suffering of white people is missing a lot of the point. The fact that the protagonist is a white African adds poignancy, given the history of whites in Africa in the post-colonial period. She didn't hate him for taking away her land or white privilege, but for his actions, the things he'd done to her people (as well as her people). It was about her loss, but in no way were whites (past her and her immediate family, who weren't part of the colonials) as a whole the issue. The bodies her brother saw, the pictures in the journals, etc. were all black.

I was disappointed it capped off with a reciting of names, but at least it didn't take place before the GA, which was my first thought.

It did seem flabby, but I don't know what I'd cut aside from some helicopter shots of, uh, helicopters and the dictator's arrival. Even Sean Penn was good, toned down from Mystic River and 21 Grams.

also, and i'm not 100% on this, but -- what is the deal with kidman's family? this is basically a film about mugabe, right? he starts in the early 80s as a freedom fighter and ends as a tyrant. kidman started out on his side, packing an AK for the rebel forces.
I don't think so. She grew up after he liberated the country circa 1981 (23 years between UN visits, I think?) her stint with the rebels was fighting against him in the late '90s (quitting five years ago).

Pretty much agree w/ everything said so far (esp. Nicole Kidman sweet lawdy) - bus scene boffo, end scene meh, just enough of Catherine Keener doing her imitation of Tom Arnold in True Lies (or, um, the Snotty Partner in every espionage flick of the last 10years), kinda wish this strayed from the run-of-the-mill drama / spy stuff (esp. since the end scene - where everything is wrapped up oh-so-conveniently - is just a lesser version of the bus scene - where the revelations actually ratchet up the tension). And, really, if Pollack actually put MORE of himself in the flick, he wouldn't come off so strangely as the meta-aware director.

As for the magical moving bangs - in the first conversation between Penn & Kidman, the lack of matching (is that what it's called?) was REAL obvious. First her hair's behind her ears, cut away, cut back, & then it's flopped in front of her right eye (OMG!), cut away, cut back, then back behind her ears. I'm surprised that wasn't caught in the editing room ... unless it was INTENTIONAL!

Her hearing them was a convenient plot contrivance, not part of the plan to 'assassinate' Zuwanie. They had nothing to gain by her overhearing, getting involved or bringing in the secret service to investigate. That could have compromised their plan to whack Kuman-Kuman.

I assume that the conversation was between one of the lackeys and the dupe (who had to actually believe he was carrying out the assassination).

this movie was fucking BADLY written, i'm sorry guys.

why would they whack the opposition? that was so stupid. it was like they wanted to eliminate any of the other suspects!
No one knew the other guy was dead, and they wanted to play the two rebel factions against each other. (Hence Kidman thinking Kuman-Kuman had killed her brother and ex-lover).

So you blow up Kuman-Kuman, stage a faux assassination of Zuwanie, blame it all on the third guy (who's already dead, but no one knows) and somewhere down the line mention that he's been killed in retaliation. You've justified Zuwanie's crimes, solidified his internal and external support (or tolerance) and eliminated the primary opposition.

It did seem flabby, but I don't know what I'd cut aside from some helicopter shots of, uh, helicopters and the dictator's arrival.

I'd get rid of the crap love interest bits between Sean Penn & Nicole Kidman. It went nowhere and it wasn't interesting.