MovieChat Forums > Interview (2007) Discussion > Questions I had after the film ended * S...

Questions I had after the film ended * Spoiler Alert.


Don't read forward if you want to see this film and haven't.

Okay, after we find out Sienna Miller's character really wasn't writing about herself but rather doing an "acting exercise" by writing a journal entry as her tv character, then how do you explain why her character freaked out so badly when Pierre revealed that he had read the "entry" on her computer. Does anyone not see how this makes no sense? She goes crazy! And it wasn't even really about her in the end.

I also don't get why she would pretend to reveal such a dark secret that is her "cancer", go into the whole process of having him confess, the video footage, everything.

I think ultimately I kept asking myself "why would her character even bring him up to her apartment?" She could have gotten him help without bringing him into her loft. And once that was never understood, the film felt more contrived as it moved along. I just couldn't believe the idea that she would carry on this long elaborate night with a man who treated her so terribly in the first place.

Thoughts?

reply

I just finished watching it. My interpretation is that she is just bored and wanted to **** with him.

reply

I see some elsewhere here talking about him being a risk to take to her apartment. It is obvious that at least two but more likely more people know she was doing an interview with him. Plus she had met him in the restaurant and, despiet not liking him, had no reason to think he was a psycho rapist or anything.

Why she asked him up? A combination of things. She knew the interview was something she had agreed to, and may have felt ambivalent about ending it. She was also bored. She may have been genuinely concerned for him, and felt badly for him. It's a combination.

reply

My husband and I watched this movie last night and we decided she was acting in most of the scenes. He had made fun of her, and she proved to him she could really act. Even to the point that she proved she was smarter than him and finally got something on him, if he decided to try to write bad things about her, because he wasn't really interested in the whole interview to begin with. To him she didn't matter and I think she wanted to show him she really did.

reply

I think you make a pretty good point there, I didn't think of that.

reply

The description in my TiVo, provided by Tribune Media Services, says, "A disdainful reporter gets a surprise when he spends an unusual evening with an actress who may not be as stupid and spoiled as she seems."

So that was my assumption going in. But I found the movie both somewhat boring and somewhat annoying. I've seen much better.

reply

I just finished watching the movie today and have to agree with your points.
She was more cunning and intelligent than he ever imagined.
After watching him be a major jerk, I really didn't feel sorry for him in the end.

reply

Katya was doing everything to make him create a positive story for her even if she had to blackmail him, cajole him ...-- after all she 'understands men'. Her erratic behaviour was cleverly designed to keep him in the position of underestimating her character. Those are my thoughts!

reply

i find all these reasons to be pretty poor. no way does a famous actress invite a man who has made such a bad impression on her into your very own apartment. and what went down with the whole confessions and who in the end it wasn't even real on her part. it was just completely absurd and not believable.

reply

cvespa,

She had agreed to do the interview. It went badly at first, but she thought she might try to restart it. I think you are making too much about that plot turn to call it "completely absurd". I did not find it so.

reply

But her apartment? Why let him in to such a personal space?

I don't care if she lived a few blocks away from the restaurant. It's just absurd. They start their meeting off terribly, she feels back he got her, and lets him in? Not buying it for a second. At the very least, she gets him help for the injury, and they continue the convo in a public place. Another restaurant. A bar. Even the street. But not her place. No way.

reply

Yeah,and my car never transformed into a Robot.Its a movie, not reality.

reply

I'll take that excuse for a film like "True Lies" when Arnold is constantly shot at but never gets it. Not for a film entirely based on two characters set in a real life circumstance. You can't throw the "it's a movie" line for this film.

reply

Sure you can. Even Buscemi uses it in his commentary. It's really not that hard to suspend disbelief for this, and it's not unheard of in the journalism community (not gossip journalism, but ACTUAL journalism).

reply

Because she knows he is a journalist for what we can assume to be national magazine with a solid reputation. It's really not far-fetched at all. Actors and actresses often invite journalists into their homes. And since they were right there, and since he was just in a car accident, it only made sense for them to go up to her place.

She pretended to be upset when he revealed that he had read that diary entry precisely because, as someone else pointed out, she wanted to prove that she could outwit him. She was acting. She was seeking revenge after he insulted her work and acting abilities. This wasn't apparent until the movie was over with, but certainly by the end it should have been.

reply

It's not that hard to understand: she saw through him early on and made him her prey. Clearly that night she was acting out and releasing some pent up anger through a game of manipulation and ultimately punishing him for being a not so great guy -- to put it lightly. She seemed like one of those people who is kind and good to people she likes and merciless to anyone she's judged worthy of becoming a target of her indignant frustration with people.

I Like Movies! They Are Cool! Yes, This Is My Message Signature -- No *beep*

reply

I really liked this movie. At the end they have an exchange about relationships.

Pierre: What do we have in common?

Katya: We don't believe in relationships.

Pierre: I knew it! You're right. There is no equality.

Katya: Nope! There is always a winner and a loser.

Pierre: Exactly.

That is probably the only dialogue between the two that is truthful. In the end Katya was the winner. For me it summed up the entire movie. That's just my thoughts though.

reply

I have two interpretations of this film, either Katya was acting the whole time and what she says at the ending is true that the journal entry was part of her soap opera persona or she was shoddily acting on purpose the whole time and subsequently when she tells him about the journal, she was still acting, but so well he couldn't not believe her. (I don't know which it was, but I think it would be more multifaceted a movie and character if it was the latter. This parallels little tidbits like he kept voicing throughout the movie, as pretending to be her that she wanted to be taken as a serious actress, and also, that's the reason she had her breasts reduced.)

"Once again the fruit of peace has become the jam of war"-"What is the secret of soylent green?"

reply

Even though the reason stated about how she was trying to outfit him, hence "acting" as if he had discovered the truth, were entirely true, I still find it incredibly hard to believe that once she heard his "revelation" that she would continue on in such a dramatic and enraged manner. I mean, if Buscemi comes out and reveals how he read from her computer, and it turns out that those things were truly not real, you are telling me she begins to cry and piss and moan and act all defeated, just to outwit him in the end? That to me is incredibly far fetched. Maybe others will disagree with my opinion on that, but trying to swallow that fact in the end is impossible for me. I think almost any other famous actress would have said "those entries in my diaries were acting exercises" instead of the elaborate events that occurred after.

I also had a hard time believing the dynamic between them both would reach a point where she would kiss him. I mean, come on. Not even the words they said prior would reach of level of intimacy like that. I'm done, I think this film was a let down. All due to the script.

reply

How hard is it to work out, everything she does to him is to trick him, I think it's too get him back for what he said in the restaurant she just totally messes with his mind by kissing him and then saying get off I hate you. She outsmarted him for the whole movie by one second being crazy and then acting as if she cared and because she was so beautiful he let her manipulate him into whatever she wanted. Prooving to him that she was an excellent actress and I thought a bit of a psycho

reply

people keep saying she is bored, thats why she did it. I think that is too weak a choice.

there were reasons far stronger than boredom for the whole thing.it's up to us to figure out what they could have been. I am glad such discussion is caused by the film.

it is a dark dark film. very well made. lots of good directing choices.

reply

So She thinks about this plot after the car accident? I will take him up to my place after he was rude to her and told him to go *beep* himself, she maybe would have helped him to the nearest clinic to sort his bleeding head but no way invited him in her apartment. Seems to me the whole screenplay is just made up so it can have the "surprise" (if it is such) at the end. Poor movie.

reply

Even though the diary isn't real, she was likely angry that he would even go into her private files and read her "diary". It wasn't real, but I'd imagine she would be really angry that he was reading what he thought was her real diary.

reply

I think she was burned by his remarks earlier in the film, calling her talent-less, not taking her seriously at all. Also considering the way her career is conveyed throughout the film we are led in the direction to believe that she's a bad actress/silly airhead who sleeps around and that is the only reason why she's famous - so she does this whole this whole thing, pretending to go crazy at him, leading him onto wanting to go deeper into her 'life' to then turn around and hit back at his remarks in the scathing way she does with that tape-swap in the end, changing his and our perception that she's not a good actress and in no way a silly airhead coz really, she fooled everyone.

Another reason that she's not a silly airhead is the fact that she even thought about swapping the tape and how he rang his editor and spilled the beans to him literally about a second after he leaves her loft. It's like a complete role-reversal in the end. Throughout the whole film we get the impression she's this unstable, dumb person when really she calculating and knows exactly what she's doing.

And she does all this, breaks him down till he reveals his dark secret. Hence why in a relationship, there's only a winner and a loser. She wins.

R.I.P - Heath Ledger

reply

I think there was the element of the father/daughter relationship which drove the two of them. A person who has had no father (and I do believe that part of her story was true), spends a lot of energy - usually unconsciously and/or subconsciously - seeking approval from men. Although I think the script was pretentious in a lot of ways, and obvious in others (where it should have been subtle), the film is still worth seeing. I want to check out the original one now.

Come join my Paul Giamatti group - movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/talkpaul/?yguid=5754742

reply

I think there are a few things that need to be considered regarding the "diary".

The whole cancer story comes from the entry for "Monday". We do not see the entry on screen, nor does Pierre. We only ever see "Tuesday". We must question whether "Monday" even exists. "Tuesday" could well be real, this is perhaps why she gives him the suspicious and slightly alarmed looks whilst on the phone and he is on the computer and also why she is so horrified when she discovers he has read it.

"Monday" is in my view Katya either improvising or opening another document, in full knowledge that if Pierre went to his editor claiming she had cancer then he would look like a chump as that is part of the plot of her TV show. The mention of cancer was a calculated move. Firstly to throw Pierre off the [in my beleif truthful] revelations from "Tuesday" and secondly invalidate any of Pierre's other claims about cocaine / her boyfriend / her lusciviousness as he would be shown to be a liar.

We learn throughout the film that Katya is keen to avoid her boyfriend. She lies to him on the phone, does not answer the door to him and even kisses Pierre to prevent him letting the boyfriend in. The lengths she goes to makes it entirely plausible that she is secretly repulsed by him.

When she is kissing Pierre for the first time, as soon as the phone rings she mumbles "God I hate you" and then upon Pierre's probing she shouts "I said I HATE YOU, what the *beep* did you think I said?" Perhaps the initial comment could have been directed at her phone (which she would have known was her pesky boyfriend). The second comment was possibly her covering her tracks, being fully aware that she was in the presence of a journalist. This happens again when they are lying on their backs on the sofa staring at the ceiling when Pierre tells the story about his brother + his suicide attempts which he claims he feels are just to "torture me". It is at this point that the phone rings and she says "do you realise that you are unpleasant?" She could of course be referring to his comment but it seems slightly random and out of place. I feel it could be an ambiguous comment which is once again directed at her phone (+ boyfriend).

Thus the entry for "Tuesday" - that she is disgusted by "Evan" in all ways could well be directed at her boyfriend. Also, when she says on the phone to her boyfriend, "I love you", she does so insincerely and in an attempt to prove a point to Pierre. It's not so hard to beleive that the engagement is for money/media attention but Katya is not so shallow and two-dimensional that she is able to go through with it without feeling repulsed.

She claims the "diary" is a character study for Amy. Yet we are constantly made aware that Katya only takes up the commercial and shallow roles. We see Katya watching "Amy" on TV and the programme is clearly directed at a teen audience, for "Amy" to harbour such dark and "real" feelings seems highly unlikely and out of line with such a show, even if she did have cancer. In the brief extract we are shown, her character is seen conversing with a male who she claims to miss and is heartbroken when the male kisses another woman. Is this male Evan? If so then the feelings outlined in the diary do not seem to tally with the plot of the show. It should also be remembered that Katya writes the entry, not Amy. Although the aim is to do so "in character", perhaps Katya is projecting her own feelings into her character. Perhaps in this way she undergoes a process of catharsis, she certainly could not confide this information in anyone else considering her position. It's hardly surprising that someone who leads a shallow life in public is only able to confront her inner demons by assuming the role of one of the people she portrays.

Anyway some of this might seem a bit of a stretch but these are the aspects that struck me (upon my 2nd watching of the film this morning). I cannot beleive that the entire diary was a lie, it makes little sense. I think Katya is a clever character with dark demons. The blackness could be anything - the hollow existence she leads, the absence and death of her father - we see no photos of any other relatives, there is no mention of her mother and in the photo of her as a child she is standing on her own.

As a side note I felt Sienna was excellent in this, she definitely stole the show for me. I really empathised with her character, I wanted to like her and in the end I did. I'd never really considered Sienna before this film but now I am most definitely a fan, I hope she lands some big roles i future.

reply

I see this totally different than anyone else. So, here is my opinion:

She is bored by men that adore her. We can see the signing of the iPod. And i guess there are a few men like Pierre - being so cold to her. And since she is a spoiled brat (who wins in every relationship) she invites him up (well, after the crash). He is very interesting for her in this point of view and also because she never had a father. I see this as a good excuse for inviting him up.

The whole "relationship" they had reminds me of that from Lost in Translation. Like in that movie they are both bored of life and want something different. I personally had a few connections like that. You just can't believe how a stranger can be so close to you. And in the end, this is just a movie.

I think that everything that happens later is true. She doesn't love her boyfriend, the diary is hers. And she has a cancer. That's why she didn't like him using the computer in the first place. And that's why she was shocked when he tells her he read the diary.

Because she thought he maybe also read the cancer entry she tells him that. But in exchange she gets to know his story.

The dialogue about the winner and loser is the point of the movie. But I didn't see her as the winner, nor him. I asked myself: But who's the winner here?

And as the end shows us: no one is the winner! He wanted to print the cancer story, and she knew that. That's why she wants to confuse him with all this "character study" story. But he still doesn't believe her. Well, he already called his boss! And that's when she uses the final ace. She tells him that she switched the cassettes.

In the end we can see them both watching the "wrong" cassettes. And they were both losers. The whole evening conversations were in vein. But you can see it from a different perspective. They are both winners. They both realised many important things about themselves.

You see, they agreed relationships don't work. But they didn't have a relationship. They just had this weird connection as in Lost in Translation. And that's why she invited him up, and that's why they told each other all this secrets, and that's why they both won.

reply

why it hard for me to take this ending is the fact that everything was Plan

the promblem with that is, it was so many things she did that would cause the guy to walk out

I mean why would you trust a LUNATIC with your personal information that could ruin your career just to get some info. Granted you have the tape but dont want word to get out either and its a change she could catch you with the tape.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1070584060

reply

Amore E Morte - excellent post - I share some of your opinions

reply

I reckon she was so determined to become a decent and respectable actress (combined with her already unstable mental state) that she has a minor case of schizophrenia. She wasn't pretending to be her character, she actually thought she was.

It explains her on/off feelings towards Pierre. In the restaurant, Katya hates him. In the street, Amy sympathises with him. It carries on throughout, with Amy kissing him, and Katya hitting him.

This also explains the mystery of her inviting him to her flat... Amy liked him and wanted him, therefore invited him home.

As the film goes on, she becomes more and more of a mish-mash of the two characters, although I believe at the end, she is all Katya, feeding Pierre the cancer stuff.

Basically, Katya is a mentally unstable, sadistic woman, who takes sick pleasure in *beep* with Pierre, while Amy is a nice , but desperately unhappy girl. Katya is aware she is not Amy, but Amy is not aware she is not Katya. This is why Katya is able to become aware that Pierre thinks her and Amy are one and the same, and decideds to play with him.

reply

Aside from the first part of your post where you introduce the idea that she was somehow schizophrenic and unable to draw distinction between herself and her character when she was in "Amy mode" (I just really see no evidence towards that anywhere in the film -- I think her actions were quite deliberate), the last 4 graphs are an awesome breakdown of how she used his perception of her and her character against him and made him fall for the same tricks over and over again. I'm now tempted to watch this film again with this somewhat altered version of your theory in mind, but I'm not sure I can take a second viewing of it.

I Like Movies! They Are Cool! Yes, This Is My Message Signature -- No *beep*

reply

Sienna Miller is the most attention starved sleazy so called actress I've ever seen on the silver screen. And this movie just made me feel more of the same.It's too bad, too. She is hot!! Nice bod, nice face, I even like her voice. But she's the same in every movie! She is so self indulgent that she doesn't know when to stop and start acting, so she doesn't do either.It's like she is so self-celebratory of herself that she can go no further than being a big d-tease!
I don't even know what to say about Buscemi devoting a whole movie to her.He should have named it 'Millerview'!
In an answer to the questions posed? This is all the explanation I have for any of them. He may as well as put on of the stars from 'The Hills' or Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashien in the role of 'Katya'. Sorry I couldn't have been more help.

I'm a people person,just not a stupid people person."Knowies" should already know this.

reply