A journalist of international politics is sent to interview a sexy soap opera star, but the situation heads in a wrong direction from the beginning. The interview turns into a furious battle of wills and a complementary spiral of deceits.
Bogus, stereotyped, downright repulsive. "Interview" is pure agony to watch as the narrative progresses without any credibility while the dialogue is making you wince in all its pretentiousness. This is truly like watching a bad soap opera. Nevertheless, thanks partly to some intriguing "acting of acting" by Buscemi and especially Miller, between the lines the film succeeds in discussing its problematic theme: the relation between a journalist and an actor, in which information and truth become tradeable goods and instruments of power. At its best, "Interview" manages to widen its scope even to a deeper social commentary about the impossibility of commodified social relations. In a mediated society of spectacle, all human relations become nothing more than acted roles, and a genuine contact can no longer be attained.
Despite the interesting - even if extremely pessimistic - argument, "Interview" suffers too much from empty, meaningless and stagnant dialogue. The essentially trivial questions of 'who betrays whom' and 'what is the "truth" about the characters' grow into excessively important motives for the narrative that quickly starts to repeat itself. The result is an unpleasant and contradictory watching experience. In the end, "Interview" is hard to like in spite of some serious effort.
Bogus, stereotyped, downright repulsive. "Interview" is pure agony to watch as the narrative progresses without any credibility while the dialogue is making you wince in all its pretentiousness. This is truly like watching a bad soap opera. Nevertheless, thanks partly to some intriguing "acting of acting" by Buscemi and especially Miller, between the lines the film succeeds in discussing its problematic theme: the relation between a journalist and an actor, in which information and truth become tradeable goods and instruments of power. At its best, "Interview" manages to widen its scope even to a deeper social commentary about the impossibility of commodified social relations. In a mediated society of spectacle, all human relations become nothing more than acted roles, and a genuine contact can no longer be attained.
Despite the interesting - even if extremely pessimistic - argument, "Interview" suffers too much from empty, meaningless and stagnant dialogue. The essentially trivial questions of 'who betrays whom' and 'what is the "truth" about the characters' grow into excessively important motives for the narrative that quickly starts to repeat itself. The result is an unpleasant and contradictory watching experience. In the end, "Interview" is hard to like in spite of some serious effort.