a film by Steve Buscemi
ONE SENTENCE SYNOPSIS
A reluctant political reporter is assigned to interview a scandalous soap starlet; but what was to be a simple “fluff” piece turns into more than either of them bargained for
HER TAKE
I will admit that when I first heard the premise of Interview I was intrigued but skeptical of how it was going to make itself last an entire 84 minutes without me finding some excuse to scour the house for hidden candy, or check my email, or rearrange the clothes in my closet by color instead of style. But lo and behold! Like someone who has unknowingly walked into quicksand, I was slowly sucked deeper and deeper into it (in a good way mind you—okay, maybe quicksand isn’t the best analogy…). Not since Hard Candy have I witnessed such an engrossing game of cat and mouse. Entertaining an audience for an entire movie where 98% of the story and dialogue takes place in one location and between only two people, can’t be easy. Then you assign that task to one man and he is to write, direct and act in it? Steve Buscemi is the MAN!
While this is a remake of a Dutch film also entitled Interview, Buscemi makes it his own. He is Pierre Peders, a jaded political journalist assigned to interview self absorbed young actress Sienna Miller—er—I mean, Katya. All joking aside, Miller is very strong opposite Buscemi. 
Prior to this, I had never seen her in anything, but a quick glance at her resume suggested that her notoriety had more to do with her status as a fashion trendsetter and the “acting” was designed to lend some credibility to her fame. Well color me ignorant, cause this girl can act (a fact recently reinforced after viewing Factory Girl). Much to my surprise, she and Buscemi have good chemistry—which makes this a good time to get a little scientific. Their relationship can be described as like two magnets. It is difficult to keep them apart when they are showing their attractive sides. But all of a sudden, one flips to face the opposite direction. Now, the one facing the original direction can’t do anything to keep itself near the other. In fact, upon turning away itself, the two are literally repelled by each other, you see?…..Alright, science wasn’t my forte but you get the idea.
At its core, this film explores the complexity of human interaction. How in one moment we are not who we appear to be and then flawlessly, undetectably, sometimes unwillingly we are exactly who we appear to be in the next. It dives into how we are able to manipulate others and in turn be manipulated (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not) based on perceptions, whether real or projected.
For 84 minutes we are granted unlimited access to watch these two seemingly opposite people from seemingly opposite worlds interact. And by watching, we are rewarded with a fascinating glimpse into how adept we humans are at blurring the line between fact and fiction, truth and lies, and who we are and who we appear to be. By the end we echo Pierre’s exhausted inquiry, “What the hell happened here tonight?” With this one line, I realized that Pierre is for the first (and only) time talking to us, the audience and challenging us to absorb the depth of the events that we have witnessed. And that is exactly how I felt at the end of this movie. I felt like a witness. A person who has been unwittingly forced to step back and see what we humans can do and do do to each other and all for…….what? That’s for the individual to decide. While it can be said that this is yet another example of “art imitating life” I believe Buscemi has presented it in such a way that provokes dissection and discussion. Well done Steve (and Sienna), well done.
HIS TAKE
Interview is Steve Buscemi and Sienna Miller’s take on our starry-eyed celebrity culture and, more specifically, it deals with the starlets whose claim to fame is nothing more than a beautiful face, a handful of bad movies and a large publicity machine. But for as much as it gets right, there’s a lot that works to undermine the film, not excluding its ending or even its star… and it’s not the one you’re thinking of.
Buscemi wrote, directed and stars as Pierre Peders – a name the young megastar will have considerable trouble remembering – in this updating (read: Americanization) of a 2003 Dutch film. Pierre is a political reporter who is unappreciatively assigned a fluffy dinner interview with soap star and socialite Katya (Miller), an actress who seems to make her living acting in a “Sex in the City”-light TV series and trivial horror flicks.
So, really, Sienna Miller is perfectly cast for the role. The actress still best known as Jude Law’s ex (yes, she was the one he cheated on with their housekeeper) is spot on. In addition, the irony of Buscemi casting Miller, whose career had lived in the tabloids up until this point, is only additionally hilarious.
Meanwhile Pierre wears his obvious disinterest on his face and it results in one of the best moments of the film, as Pierre gets caught fumbling through the interview asking obvious questions and ultimately admits to having never seen any of Katya’s films. The discomfort escalates from there and as you would expect, the interview falls apart shortly thereafter.
But due to a happy accident (quite literally Pierre’s cabbie crashes while he’s hitting on Katya), suddenly their stories are thrown back together and the two continue the interview in Katya’s airplane-hangar-huge loft.
From then on Interview works like one of those stubbornly suffocating play adaptations that take place entirely within the confines of a single locale – I had to triple-check just to make sure 
this hadn’t originated on the stage. When these work (Glengarry Glen Ross, Cat on a Hot Tin Roof) it’s because there is nothing overtly wrong, the dialogue and acting are carrying the film and you’re completely focused on the story. But when they don’t, they can seem claustrophobic and somehow slightly ‘off’ (Proof), like the entire world was removed except this one set.
With a movie like Interview you’re already starting with one hand tied behind your back as the filmmaker. So it’s especially important that your casting choices are pitch perfect because they’re going to be under the microscope for every minute of the running time. The worst thing you can do for yourself is to focus your entire storyline around an actor who can’t possibly carry their own weight.
So Buscemi took a risk casting the previously unproven Miller, but what’s funnier is something the director probably never thought possible… she entirely outdoes Buscemi himself. And largely, it isn’t “Buscemi the Actor’s” fault. He’s still one of our very best character actors and as evidenced by Lonesome Jim and Animal Factory, he’s a pretty solid director as well. Who the fault lays with is “Buscemi the Casting Director”. He’s cast himself in a role that he can’t possibly come off well in.
The entire interplay of Kayta and Pierre rests on the idea that these people are toying with one another both casually and sensually (and I don’t know about anyone else but suave and sensual are not the first adjectives I’d use to describe Mr. Buscemi). His drained appearance work wonders for the Donny’s (The Big Lebowski) and Seymour’s (Ghost World) of the world, but Pierre needed something more. This is a role for Cary Grant or George Clooney, not that guy being fed into the woodchipper in Fargo.
Then there’s that ending. Another one of those absurd twists that betrays the entire previous hour of the film you’ve watched. When the twist is revealed, all the spirit and vitality of their conversation (one that had reeled me in up to that point) is unfortunately negated.
And the only thing you can feel as the credits start to roll is… you’ve been lied to.
HER REACTION
I just have to laugh at how two people can watch the exact same movie and have such different impressions of it. I don't wholeheartedly disagree with anything you said (especially that Miller outshines Buscemi) but I clearly saw this as a much more interesting psychological study than you did. And if you are looking at it from my point of view, the Peders character couldn't have been a Clooney or Grant because it would have tipped the balance of opposites (which both attract and repulse). I'd say if nothing else, this movie was successful in that it has stirred up some very different reactions to it and when a movie evokes debate, I think that's a good thing.
HIS REACTION
This is our first real disagreement with any of the films we've watched up to this point and I think it has a lot to do with the two things I cited as taking away from the overall film - that terrible ending and Buscemi portraying Pierre. There is a good film here. The back-and-forth banter that the two stars have to work with could definitely be fashioned into something better though. While you say the film didn't need a Cary Grant or a George Clooney, at the least it needed a Billy Bob Thornton. Buscemi is totally unbelievable in the role opposite Miller to the point it drew me completely out of it (if you need further proof check out those pictures above). I feel that if Buscemi wasn't responsible for adapting and directing, this is something that would have been realized in the casting sessions. Recast Pierre and you may have something here.
written by Brian and Rebecca
First, the bad. James Cameron, the man behind the great Terminator and Terminator 2 is not coming back and neither is Jonathan Mostow, who filled in admirably with Terminator 3. Nope, instead we might be getting the man who brought us those two Cameron Diaz Charlie's Angels flicks and the underwhelming We Are Marshall. That's right folks, the guy who brags about getting his Charlie's Angels cast naked in his van and goes by the horribly irritating acronym McG is taking over my beloved Terminator series? You CAN'T be serious. This guy is up there with Brett Ratner as one of the only guys in Hollywood who can delude themselves into thinking they have actual talent behind the camera in spite of their shitty filmographies. It's totally irrational and I absolutely hate the choice. Hell, why not give it to Michael Bay or Paul W.S. Anderson to crap all over while you're at it?
