The Interview was controversial before it was released. North Korea was against the movie, and a computer hacker group allegedly working for North Korea hacked Sony Entertainment because of it. But was that deserved? And was it fun?
In the Interview, Dave Skylark (James Franco), the host of a celebrity talk show, and his producer Aaron Rapoport (Seth Rogen) have just completed a thousand episodes of their show. They are successful, but when Aaron runs into an old friend, he is told he’s not a real journalist.
Skylark discovers that Kim Jong-un of North Korea is a fan of his show and the two of them decide to go for an interview to do some real journalism. Kim Jong-un agrees. This prompts the CIA to come to their door and ask the two to assassinate the North Korean leader on the show.
Funny or antagonising
I thought the movie was pretty humorous. It wasn’t the funniest thing I’d ever seen, but it made me laugh. I had the same response to their previous endeavour, This is the End. One question you have to ask, though, is if you should make a movie like this. The antagonist of the movie is a living person, who – small spoiler here – at the end of the movie is killed.
Can you really do that? How would the US react if a movie was made that showed Obama being a psychopath and then blown up? Or Donald Trump?
I don’t have an answer to this one. Freedom of expression says that you should be able to make the art you want. However, if you mix untruths and truths about a still living person and have them killed in a movie, should you really make that art? It tastes a bit like straw man theming.
On the other hand, if you can overthrow a dictatorship with words instead of bombing the hell out of them until the civilian casualties number in the hundred-thousands, that might be worth something as well. That said, the Interview is good, but it isn’t that great.
As I stated, I had a laugh, but this isn’t the classic that will set a country on fire, I think. It isn’t really worth the fuss. Then again, stranger things have happened?