Mark-129 Having read the intriguing novel beforehand, I had looked forward to a film adaption. At that time I always imagined Andrea McArdle a young Broadway stage actress and the original "Annie" was not only the right age but had the look and personality of Charlie as described in the book, might have been a fine "unknown" choice for the role.Sadly, the casting of Diane Keaton was just a disaster. A choice the entire production never could overcome. Although a good actress, Keaton was about 15 years too old for the role of an ingénue who becomes the obsession of a terrorist and her pronounced New York accent was too much at times.The movie follows the novel very closely, perhaps too closely for it's own good. It should nave been about 20 minutes shorter. Still, even at it's full length, the screenplay misses the most interesting moment in the book, where the reader is left to ponder if Charlie has truly joined the "movement" and was ready to kill for the terrorist group she had infiltrated.The actual production seemed a bit on the cheap side. It appears the director wanted a look of reality, but by 80s standards that meant filming on location using real streets with little local activity to get in the way.The rest of the cast, except for Klaus Kinski's star turn is totally forgettable.Finally, over the years I've come to realize The Little Drummer Girl was a story that was best served on the written page. Too much of the story is internalized in Charlie's mind, and that personal struggle is not easily translated to film.

John Peters I recently saw "The Little Drummer Girl" on DVD and liked it a lot. Diane Keaton is at the heights of her powers and Klaus Kinski is convincing as Martin Kurtz (a possible reference to Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness"), a lead Israeli intelligence operative. All of the acting, direction, and cinematography are competent or better. Roger Ebert and others have downgraded the movie because of the complexity of its plot. To me, the plot is not the true focus, any more than it is in Raymond Chandler novels. What the movie is really about is the power of acting and the ways in which actors love and are consumed by their roles.The one who loves and becomes consumed is Charlie, the Diane Keaton character. She is a star actress in a British repertory company who overwhelms colleagues and audiences by her ability to bring roles to life. She is also an enthusiastic partisan of the Palestinian cause who we see raising her voice with dramatic intensity at a public meeting. By doing this, she becomes a person of interest to an Israeli intelligence operative who recognizes her potential for his side. The Israelis kidnap her and promise to release her after they've told her what they want and what they can offer.What they can offer is the acting opportunity of a lifetime, and one that will give her an opportunity to influence events in the real world to a far greater extent than by her flamboyant participation in demonstrations. She says that all she really wants is a just settlement and peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Kurtz agrees with her, and says that they want these things as well but that extremists on both sides are hurting the efforts of both reasonable Palestinians and reasonable Israelis. By using her talents to work for them, he says, she can help to make what she wants possible.The role of a lifetime turns out to have a dual character at which she excels. She is able to adopt both Israeli and Palestinian causes and, after extensive training from both sides, to gain the confidence of a key Palestinian terrorist. Sex plays a significant part although we are spared shots of nude bodies in motion. There's bloody violence and the film's eventual ending can be seen as a comment on the limitations of great acting.

aturner6 It's been years since I've seen this movie (or read the book, which I did also), and I'm prompted to say something only because I'm reading a new novel, set in Sarajevo, on roughly the same subject, which brings it all to mind. Quite simply, Diane Keaton (whom I like, sometimes) was abysmally miscast, and since the movie turned around her it hadn't a chance. She was too old, too personally quirky, too American. Charlie is a character whose complexity is that of youthful dumbness mixed with superficial knowingness. There are lot of actresses who could have done it (Natasha Richardson might have been one of them, which would certainly have been interesting), but Keaton wasn't one of them.

Quentintarantado The director is weak, the original story is great. What can I say, I'm an avid le Carre fan! To paraphrase Sidney Bruhl (Michael Caine in Deathrap, 1982) it's a story so good a bad director can't f**k it up. Check out the other comments, I agree with them. Klaus Kinski is great, he chews the scenery, and the supporting cast are all mini-gems. I was trying to decide if I liked Yorgo Voyagis, and I do. He may be too still for some people, but I believe Diane when she falls in love with him. And he has haunted eyes when he has to do bad things which are necessary for the Cause. Diane Keaton is so miscast. She's too old, she can't be an American doing St. Joan in England! She's good, but she can't be Charlie, she just can't. Maybe Helena Bonham-Carter, or Vanessa Redgrave when she was young, oh heck, there must be hundreds of english actresses slavering for this role at that time.Nevertheless, I love the movie despite Diane Keaton (she does a good job, it's just I can't buy her in the role!).