Interview		Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
Prior to his highly publicized murder in 2004, acclaimed international filmmaker Theo Van Gogh (great-grandson of Vincent Van Gogh’s brother Theo) had his longtime producer Gijs van de Westelaken along with American producer Bruce Weiss contact various New York filmmakers about a new project called “Triple Theo.”  The goal of the project was to have Americans remake three of his of his Dutch-language movies into English that focus on the universal theme of relationship issues set in a two-person narrative format. The American remakes in Triple Theo are Interview, which preys upon our preconceived notions of stereotypes when a political correspondent tries to interview a narcissistic actress.  The second film, Blind Date (opted by Stanley Tucci) delves into the strained relationship of a married couple who is role playing their way through a blind date.  The third film, 06 (currently in production with John Turturro) takes Triple Theo’s relationship theme even further by examining the interactions between a man and a woman who have only spoken to each other over the phone, but never in person.   Steve Buscemi stars in and directs Interview, the first release of this trifecta of remade Van Goghs.  The film introduces the relationship trilogy by showing how people aren’t always what they seem to be – especially when it comes to the media circus of celebrity gossip.  Buscemi further enhances Van Gogh’s version by incorporating Theo’s camera technique, which consists of having three digital cameras running during all takes (one on each character, and the third camera on middle and master shots) to give the movie the same production feel as the Dutch original.
Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics			In the movie, Pierre Peders (Steve Buscemi) is a political correspondent upset by his editor’s assignment to interview Katya (Sienna Miller), a self-absorbed actress, instead of sending him to cover a breaking scandal at the White House.  As soon as Pierre and Katya meet at the designated posh New York restaurant, they promptly annoy the crap out of each another, ending their conversation before it really begins…or, so it seems.
Within minutes of leaving the restaurant, these two egomaniacs are fatefully reunited when the driver of Pierre’s cab collides with a parked van because he is too busy ogling Katya strutting along the adjacent sidewalk to watch where he’s going.  A remorseful Katya then offers to let Pierre clean up the bloody gash on his forehead and finish their interview back at her apartment which is only a couple of blocks away.  Once Katya and Pierre’s “real” interview gets under way, it doesn’t take long to realize that any preconceived notions you might have had about these dysfunctional characters will soon be tossed by the wayside.  On one hand you have Pierre, the pompous journalist who thinks reporting celebrity gossip is beneath him.  He hasn’t seen any of Katya’s movies, he doesn’t watch her TV show, and like the rest of America, he’s “only interested in who she’s fucking.”  On the other hand is Katya, the overly-exposed starlet who thinks the world should and does revolve around her.  She is an hour late to the restaurant, she demands a table that is already occupied, and she keeps interrupting Pierre to answer her cell phone that barks like a Chihuahua every time it rings.  As their seductive game of cat and mouse slowly simmers and builds to a slow boil, Katya and Pierre inadvertently find themselves smack-dab in the middle of a creepy substitute father-daughter bonding moment.  But, I wouldn’t get too comfortable if I were you.  By the time the movie reaches its emotional climax and everyone’s secrets have been revealed, these double-crossing liars yank the rug of certainty right out from underneath your feet, leaving us to wonder which one is the cat and which one is the mouse in Pierre and Katya’s masterfully deceptive “pas de deux.”
This film works on multiple levels because it is so well written.  By playing to our nature of recognizing and embracing stereotypes, it’s not hard for the writers (Buscemi and David Schechter) to trick us into believing this is the same type of Hollywood narrative we’ve seen a hundred times before.  Just be careful ‘cause that’s exactly where they want us – lulled into a false sense of character identity so they can turn the tables on us when we least expect it.				Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics
Yet, as strong as the narrative is, the real strength of the film lies in the performances of Sienna Miller and Steve Buscemi, who effectively feed off one another to convey the complexity of their ethically twisted characters through this façade of appearances.  From empathy and heartache, all the way to anger and disgust, Buscemi takes us on one hell of an emotional roller coaster ride.  Even though Miller’s journey takes us on the same type of ride (albeit in reverse order), this gossip-fodder actress is able to turn her range of emotions off and on at will, making is seem as if she is incapable of taking anything or anyone seriously.  Only when it’s too late do you start to question both Katya’s and Miller’s true acting abilities.  As far as the cinematography is concerned, the three-camera technique Buscemi incorporates from van Gogh is characteristic of the “purity” filmmaking elements of Dogma 95.  Interview is filled with hand-held footage, it was shot on location in present day New York City, and no special lighting or superficial action is used.  Resorting to Dogma 95 techniques is indeed a noble idea; but, unfortunately, it does have a downside.  At times, I can see where the visual unsteadiness created by Buscemi’s hand-held shots might be a little too much for some audience members who are prone to motion sickness.  It’s not as visually jarring as The Constant Gardner, but there were points where I wanted to grab the camera and stick it on a tripod to keep it from moving around so much.  Normally, I detest remakes because they only exemplify Hollywood’s never-ending desire to cash in on someone else’s success formula; but, this time, I’m making an exception.  Moviegoers bored with this summer’s standard mix-and-match Garanimal collection of formulaic action sequences, predictable narratives, and underdeveloped characters, won’t be disappointed with Interview.  It’s one of those rare movies that tricks you into thinking it’s about as emotionally deep as a kiddie pool; but, when the credits start to roll and the lights come back up, you realize just how smart this film really is.
Image courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics			I don’t doubt for one second that celebrities everywhere will love Buscemi’s remade tale of misperception.  Although, I don’t know if I can say the same thing for the reporters who watch it.  On the chance they do enjoy the film, I’m willing to bet most of them will be double and triple checking their facts (as trite as they may be) before their next celebrity interview.  © Kelly Bartley 2007
Release Date:	July 27, 2007 (limited)
Running Time:	1 hr 23 min
MPAA Rating:	R (language, some drug use)
Distributor:	Sony Pictures Classics