'Reluctant Fundamentalist' tries to straddle dual worlds
Mohsin Hamid's 2007 bestseller “The Reluctant Fundamentalist” charted a successful Pakistani immigrant's ill-fated love affair with an American woman and post-9/11 America.
In director Mira Nair's drama, we track the story through a long interview conducted by an American journalist, and possible CIA agent (Liev Schreiber). He questions Changez Kahn (Riz Ahmed), a radical Pakistani professor, about his involvement in the kidnapping of an American academic.
Kahn leads his interrogator, and us, through his days as a bright-eyed striver at Princeton and his meteoric rise as a Wall Street star (mentored by a slick, chilling Kiefer Sutherland). He even woos the boss's niece (Kate Hudson, dramatically out of her depth).
After the Twin Towers attacks, he's singled out for humiliating rounds of racial profiling, street-corner taunting and cavity searches by airport cops who snap their rubber gloves with relish. Even his lover reveals a wide streak of thoughtless racism.
Nair's film draws a clear parallel between violent Islamic fundamentalism and job-destroying capitalist economic fundamentalism, and firmly rejects both. If only good intentions made up for heavy-handed dramatics.
Colin Covert is a movie critic for the Star-Tribune (Minneapolis).
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Review: ‘Far From the Madding Crowd’ a period-piece love quadrangle
- Review: ‘I Am Big Bird’ a gentle peek at the guy behind the yellow feathers
- Going inside Big Bird, a film takes wing with Caroll Spinney
- Review: Tomorrow isn’t what it used to be in ‘Tomorrowland’
- Review: ‘Poltergeist’ solid remake of haunted house classic
- Action, comedy, horror — Summer should be hot at the multiplex
- Review: Amazing Randi pulls back the curtain in ‘An Honest Liar’