BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

Lost in Translation

  
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
06:36 / 17.02.04
Not Me Again: applause, applause.

I really think people who are focussing on the inherent "racism" in the film are missing the point in a big way. When you are a stranger in a strange land, it doesn't matter how hard you try to participate in the culture, you will always find yourself looking in from the outside. There was a brilliant, rather long shot in the opening of a sign in Japanese, and I did what Bob was presumably doing: stared at the symbols in the hope that suddenly they would make sense. This was a culture the characters have no hope of seeing in an enlightened sense, but that does not make their intentions bad.

In that light, it would be weird if Bob and Charlotte noticed the more subtle differences between America and Japan. It wouldn't work. The whole foreign culture aspect partially serves to highlight the loneliness these characters feel. I loved (and identified with in a big way) the shot when Charlotte ties paper on the tree at the temple: she is taking part in the culture in her own way and gets some satisfaction from the act; at the same time she is alone and cannot share the experience with a larger group, which is the real power of ritual and culture.

hence the loneliness, hence being lost in translation.
 
 
eye landed
07:41 / 17.02.04
Indeed, we must keep in mind the title, which was surely given to reflect SC's inability to give to the viewer an accurate impression of her own experience. The "racism" that people shoehorn onto the movie is a reflection of their own repression and guilt.

Yes, Japanese people are different from Americans, not because of a priori categories, but because they live in a different freaking country. Yes, it's hard to live in a place where you don't understand what people are saying. That doesn't mean the people you don't understand are inferior. That attitude is actually the root of racism: just because people are different and hard to understand, they must be inferior. We seem to be expressing some kind of post-racism, where instead of oppressing other races by killing and discriminating against them, we oppress them by putting them in a glass case marked "fragile."

The scene in the hospital where BM entertains two Japanese ladies with his poor Japanese skills showed an interaction between equals, even if the interaction was limited by factors nobody could control.

Something is lost in translation from the creator's intent to your mind. Because of that loss, people see racism instead of celebration of diversity. But hell, maybe SC is a bigot and I'm the one who's failing to translate.
 
 
MojoJojo
15:37 / 17.02.04
Ol'Lazy: Which scene do you mean?

The scene like having the Japanese businessmen as smiling simpletons could have worked better if executed in some other way. Not sure how, though. But (exectuion-wise) it just seemed all too simple.

The shower scene also felt unnecessary but I'd hardly call the film racist because of that.

It's just that a lot of the jokey bits highlighting cultural differences were all executed in way that didn't feel like the two were feeling alienated at all, and that it all felt unecessary.

(Still like the hospital scene, though).

I related more to their alienation more when they were alone and rather than while they were interacting with the japanese.

- Greasy PC Thug
 
 
MojoJojo
15:45 / 17.02.04
* scratch the "and" before "rather".
 
 
pomegranate
16:53 / 17.02.04
i'd like to address something seth said on the previous page. he said that he's sure that the final line exists in some sense, because of the way scarlett responds to it. i just want to say that it's obviously sofia coppola's intent that we not know what it is that's being said (a friend of mine even watched that part w/the closed captioning on; it only says something like 'indecipherable'), but as far as the line "existing" in some sense, i wouldn't be surprised if it was scarlett's choice as an actor what charlotte is "hearing." i'm just a little sensitive to this stuff cos i've studied acting and i feel like people don't know enough about the craft to give credit where it's due, they don't realize the enormous number of choices an actor makes, all of which contribute to the reality and tone of a performance.

another example of this that springs to mind is the end of monster's ball, for those who've seen it. yr not sure exactly what's going on at the end, but that's not because nothing's going on inside of the character--yr just not privy to it, that's all. it also doesn't mean that the director specifically told halle berry to think/feel a certain thing, or that it says anything specific in the script. (altho' that could be.)

i quite liked LiT, especially the soundtrack. sofia's good with that.
 
 
rakehell
04:04 / 19.02.04
Lionheart: Japanese doesn't have sound that's distinctly R or L, it's kind of a combination of both. So when Japanese native speakers learn English they use this sound for both L and R. Because it's a combiation sound, when used for R native English speakers hear more of L and when the L is pronounced English speakers hear the R.
 
 
wembley can change in 28 days
08:09 / 19.02.04
Ol'Lazy thus:
The scene like having the Japanese businessmen as smiling simpletons could have worked better if executed in some other way.

I disagree that the smiling made the Japanese businessmen "simpletons" in any way. I loved the business card scene near the beginning, because there IS a ritualised way in Japan to introduce yourself to a business colleague, and it involves taking and giving business cards (apparently you're supposed to take it with both hands and read it thoroughly, especially if the other person has seniority or other superiority). And they do smile. It's a big part of the way they communicate in their very hierarchical business world. I remember thinking that it wasn't the Japanese who looked stupid, it was Bob - because he didn't know the protocol.

That's often how I've felt, living in a strange country with different cultural practices: it's not they who are ridiculous, but I. If I were too tall for the shower heads in Japan, you should be laughing at me, not at a demographic of short - oops - vertically-challenged people.
 
 
Seth
08:33 / 19.02.04
mantis: you might be right. But there are also many examples of unheard/partially heard dialogue being fully scripted. We may never know (although I'd be interested to find out if the DVD commentary addresses it).
 
 
pomegranate
13:35 / 19.02.04
rakehell--and here i thought it was just "for yuks." no seriously, thanks, that was interesting info.
 
 
MojoJojo
15:59 / 19.02.04
Wembley

I loved the business card scene near the beginning, because there IS a ritualised way in Japan to introduce yourself to a business colleague, and it involves taking and giving business cards (apparently you're supposed to take it with both hands and read it thoroughly, especially if the other person has seniority or other superiority). And they do smile. It's a big part of the way they communicate in their very hierarchical business world.,

I'm aware of the customs, but...

I remember thinking that it wasn't the Japanese who looked stupid, it was Bob - because he didn't know the protocol.

This is where we read things differently, then. To me, the way the custom was exaggerated seemed like it was meant to make the japanese one-dimensional, (and Bob just too worn down to pay attention).

And again, that's not entirely a bad thing. If handled differently it might've been pretty effective (sometimes it DOES feel like Sophia was going for "the japanese-culture-through-western-lens" approach but not being too successful with it).
 
 
FinderWolf
18:11 / 19.02.04
Plus, let's not forget he's a visiting MOVIE STAR. He'd be fawned over and smiled at like crazy in any country, by anyone. They're being as gracious hosts as they can be to welcome this celebrity, who they've hired to do a commercial for them. It's as simple as that, I thought. (and yes, Bill Murray's character is exhausted so the welcoming "ritual" comes off weird since he has no idea what to make of it and he's jetlagged and feels really bizarre about the whole thing, and keep in mind this job is something he feels sort of lousy about, cause he's only doing it for the money and feels all washed up in his career, which certainly colors how he views the trip.)
 
 
Tryphena Absent
18:21 / 19.02.04
This is a very good film to the point where it left me so miserable at the end that I was almost in tears. I want to emphasise something said on the previous page...

It seems like you wanted to see these people be the idealized versions of people in this situation, and that is not what you're getting, and THAT'S why the film is great

On leaving the cinema the person I went with said that he didn't find Scarlett Johansson as effective as Bill Murray but I think that's nonsense. The nicest thing about her role is her lack of real glamour. Women in film are so often hyped up, think about Chunking Express and the second female character or the lead female in The Dreamers, Charlotte isn't overdone, she's a person and that makes it very easy to dismiss her problems as exaggerated. That's what made this film great, the sheer amount of pain that this movie brought across was staggering. That's why I hated it, I found it oppressive and upsetting and wanted to leave the cinema about ten times and weep like a baby. The alienation was way too much for me, I just felt so lonely by the end of it but it was brilliant.

Racism is not inherent in LiT. The whole purpose is to express the alienation that the two characters are feeling, how the hell can you do that without defining the differences they see in the culture? Pay attention to the scene where the curtain automatically opens, I think that tells you everything you need to know about the films relationship with racism. Basically if you don't pay specific attention to the dialogue and reactions of the characters in the first half hour you're completely lost. The set up is the most staggering thing about this movie, it's totally cohesive, it's really a novel, you miss one exchange and something later on becomes far more trivial than it is.

Damn, I think I just talked myself in to watching it again. How depressing.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
23:01 / 19.02.04
That's strange, I found this movie to be incredibly uplifting. What's up with that, huh?!
 
 
LDones
02:30 / 20.02.04
I completely agree, Suedehead. It was quiet, graceful. Sincere.

Sofia Coppola's compensatory gift to the world after her role in the Godfather III.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:17 / 20.02.04
So many sharp and insightful points raised. I've got some ideas that tie together & amplify a lot of the comments already made; forgive me for not crediting each & every one, but I'm writing on the fly here...

There's a theory that each film contains a single scene that is the key to understanding the whole thing. I think, for Lost In Translation, it's the exchange between Bob and the photographer re: 007. Are we meant to believe that the photographer prefers Moore over Connery because he is Japanese? No. He prefers Moore over Connery because he's a taste-challenged fuckhead who wouldn't know quality if it came up and bit him on the ass.

And there's the clash of ideas at the heart of Lost in Translation. The film isn't about the conflicting values of East and West, or about American cultural imperialism. It's about kitsch vs. quality; trash culture vs. real beauty; Roger Moore vs. Sean Connery.

The emptiness of kitsch is corollary to / exemplified by the phoney-ness and hollowness of showbiz culture; good art, corollary to the life-nurturing qualities of true human connection.

The film shows crap and quality on both sides of the East/West cultural divide. Pachinko and junk TV are soul-sucking and ruinous, yes, but so is the Western lounge act. There is lasting truth and beauty in temple chants and flower arrangement, yes--but also in the songs of Elvis Costello, Roxy Music, and the Pretenders. The two karaoke scenes are very significant, I think. When Bob and Charlotte do karaoke, it's lovely and revelatory: when the Cameron Diaz-alike caterwauls "The Spy Who Loved Me" (not coincidentally the theme to a Roger Moore 007 film), it's just awful and embarrassing. Why? Because Bob and Charlotte have taste and humility that the starlet lacks.

The title is an interesting paradox, because I think more is gained than "lost" in translation. The treatment that Bob receives in Tokyo--the entourage, the prostitute, the pretentious director, the obnoxious photographer, the braying jackass of a TV host--isn't all that different than what he would encounter in Mexico City, or Montreal--or even Chicago. It's universal showbiz culture. And it's a bubble in which he has existed, more or less comfortably, for his entire adult life. But experiencing these familiar showbiz tropes through the prism of Japanese culture gives him much-needed perspective: he is able to recognize them fully for what they are.

One example of several in the film: Of course Bob has endured hours of ludicrous direction from pretentious phonies like the one who shoots his whiskey commercial--but having to experience it through the filter of a translator brings it home how absurd it all is. All the blather and expansive gestures boil down to nothing more than, "Turn with intensity." Wham: perspective. (One gets the feeling that Bob has always had--or has grown into--a certain level of self-awareness that's lacking in both the starlet and John the photographer, but that his Tokyo experience is something of a tipping point.)

At the other end of the scale is John, Charlotte's husband, who's recently gained entree into the showbiz world, and is slowly falling prey to the seductions of garbage culture, who listens uncritically to the jabber of power-cleansings and reverbed beats. One gets the feeling that within five years, he'll probably be very successful--and that every vestige of good taste or critical thinking will have been burned out of him by the crucible of fame. He'll probably be a Scientologist, fa chrissakes.

So if there's anything of Sofia Coppola's personal experience in the film, I think it's that. Growing up in Hollywood as the daughter of film royalty, she has seen firsthand the emptiness of show business--and as a person of artistic sensibility, she has also seen how this muck throws up the occasional pearl, and learned to treasure it--and learned how to balance the two: how to survive in showbiz and retain some semblance of taste.

To depart from my overriding thesis: Ms. Coppola is just fantastic at capturing mood. I knew that from The Virgin Suicides, which, though far more plot-driven than Lost In Translation, wouldn't have worked at all if it hadn't managed to capture the spooky hothouse sexuality of the story. Lost In Translation is almost all mood, but it's a devilishly hard mood to convey--the feeling that you get in a hotel bar, drinking with strangers at odd hours. I like the way she kept the dialogue intentionally muted during the part scene with Charlotte's friends--the air of amiable mutual unintelligibility, of being sleepless, late at night, in a city you don't know, with people you don't know, having a conversation and you're not sure about what. It's one of those things that's very hard to explain, but if you've been in that situation (and I have) you recognize it instantly.

Gah. Posting this now, as ill-formed as it is.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
12:26 / 20.02.04
Nah Jack, that was a great post. Some things I hadn't fully thought about there.

I can't get away from this film, I actually just love it. It feels like I film I could watch when depressed, or unsure of myself, to regain some vitality or sense of creative direction. Of all the possibilities of things I could do, and excitement of just, y'know, being.

I've never had such a strong emotional reaction to a film, it was kind of amazing.

I must stop gushing.
 
 
Matthew Fluxington
13:53 / 20.02.04
Jack, that's a great post. I don't have anything to say in response at the moment, but I think you put into words a lot of ideas that I had, but hadn't coalesced into anything I could properly articulate. Thanks.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
17:19 / 20.02.04
I think the whole racism claims are missing the point too. Lost In Translation isn't bad because it's racist, it's bad because it's a plotless, aimless disaster of a movie; good performances held together with chewing gum and the don't-you-totally-agree-with-me-on-this-one ennui of looking through hotel windows.

Ugh.

I was quite excited to see this film, I love Bill and SJ in all their previous work, the commercials looked great in a What Time Is It There? sort of way (which, by the way, if you're looking for the movie that everyone says Lost In Translation is, What Time Is It There? is the actual right movie to see), but, alas, it was nothing more than taped together rubbish.

One big sigh, this movie was.

I don't think priveleged people have no right to feel things (Hamlet was an excellent call), but, Hamlet's father was murdered, and then the murderer married Hamlet's mom. I can get behind that. There is drama there.

But when you tell the story of two people who could easily relieve themselves from the mild discomfort of their lives with a plane ticket, prepare to suck all possible dramatic tension from your movie.

Bo. Ring.

What Time Is It There? however, deals with serious things, death and mortality and time and family. A movie about boredom, accurate as it may be, could only possibly, in me at least, engender feelings of, you guessed it, complete and total boredom.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:15 / 20.02.04
One big sigh, this movie was.

I thought that was kind of the point.

The plotlessness and the aimlessness that you saw as failings of the film, I thought were its strengths. To pump up the DRAMATIC TENSION! with murder and adultery would have been, well, dishonest. The film was a mood piece, a meditation: it was what it was. If you didn't dig it, that's okay.

But to call it "a disaster"? How so?

Unless--wait--are you saying that the disontents of showbiz culture and a creeping sense of spiritual emptiness are somehow unworthy subjects for a film?

Cos I think you're pretty far out on a limb, if that's what you're saying.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
18:19 / 20.02.04
Eh. You don't think the way they were acting was symptomatic of deeper, subtle, things wrong with their lives? Big vague things, maybe not "serious" issues like death and mortality (yawn?) but actual things that affect life, that are affecting their own lives and how they perceive and relate to things/people? Everyday feelings and thoughts = just as important as any serious shit! It is the serious shit!

I swear, it's strange (not entirely related to BB's previous post) that people acting like... real people, seems so jarring on the big screen. Everyone obssessing over the tiny flaws, and what's wrong with everyone, and how are people who have money and prospects allowed to have feelings that aren't entirely happy, or shouldn't they just be shutting up and getting on with their possibly empty lives just because they should be happy?

I'm sure someone else will come along and say what I'm trying to far better. What makes this film so good for me is how accurately it portrays the ambiguiety of everyday life and feelings.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
18:23 / 20.02.04
Oh, Jack did.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
18:49 / 20.02.04
Okay, I'll take back "disaster". That's a bit harsh.

To pump up the DRAMATIC TENSION! with murder and adultery would have been, well, dishonest.

See, it's that kind of thinking, DRAMATIC TENSION! = murder and adultery, that makes so many films like this so terrificially boring. There doesn't need to be a guy in a fedora for there to be something at stake.

Eh. You don't think the way they were acting was symptomatic of deeper, subtle, things wrong with their lives? Big vague things, maybe not "serious" issues like death and mortality (yawn?) but actual things that affect life, that are affecting their own lives and how they perceive and relate to things/people? Everyday feelings and thoughts = just as important as any serious shit! It is the serious shit!

Oh, Jesus, though. Show me those things! Tell me the story of those things! "Big vague things" might (MIGHT!) work on paper, but I'm just not the kind of person who can sit through it in the dark.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
19:05 / 20.02.04
Show you people acting out normal lives on the screen? It's all there, man.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
19:44 / 20.02.04
No, you hinted at big vague things going on underneath the surface. The only way to show that in film, successfully, is through action, through characters doing things, taking risks, et al. There was painfully little of that in this film.

For example, I make decisions every day, all the time. I do not, however, take risks every day. I do not, every day, make decisions that threaten all the things that are important to me. Stories, at least the kind that I like, are the ones that deal with those kinds of decisions.

It's all well and good to poo poo that kind of storytelling, to say that it's not true to "real life," and say that "real life" is all about the "quieter moments" where "everything" "happens" "beneath the surface", but from The Illiad to Light In August to freakin' The Elegant Universe, compelling stories tend to focus on those moments where decisions are made.

For example, there could've been a point where Bob had to make a decision: "Do I stay in Japan and hang out with Charlotte or do I defy this agent who's breathing down my neck and a wife who wants me home?" Instead, we just cut to scene that's some undisclosed amount time later, where that problem has apparently been solved off camera. Because there was a definitive point where Bob talked with his agent about not wanting to stay longer. He hung up the phone on that conversation without resolution. We see that, yes, at some point he had to have decided that he wanted to stay because he was on the Talk Show. We do not, however, see the decision being made. Personally, that's just one of two things:
a) sloppiness
b) willful obfuscation

Neither of those constitute good storytelling, or rather, "storytelling that's up my alley".
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
19:49 / 20.02.04
Oh and

death and mortality (yawn?)

Seriously?

Isn't the whole movie ostensibly about Charlotte growing up? Why do you think people tell stories about growing up? Because of how awesome it is to live forever?
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
19:56 / 20.02.04
Also (sorry this hasn't been in one post), I love seeing real people on the screen, I hate to death cliched unrealistic and underdeveloped characters in films and TV and whatever else people feel like making. A good story is only good with a realistic protagonist. You could have the most mind-blowing concept on Earth, but if you through Eric Roberts into it, you're left with uninteresting shit. That's what made this film such a disappointment. You've two phenomenal actors wading through an aimless mess.

Look at Murray in Rushmore. His life is, and we see it, falling apart around him and he picks himself up and you're just glued to the screen. You want to see what happens. This poor shlub has things at stake.

He's a totally believable character. He was acting 100% real for all 90 minutes. And I enjoyed it.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
20:13 / 20.02.04
Ok, I don't really have the time to talk about this now (and indeed my posts were shoddy before, and I wish you would have concentrated on jack, but still...), but basically I disagree with this;

No, you hinted at big vague things going on underneath the surface. The only way to show that in film, successfully, is through action, through characters doing things, taking risks, et al. There was painfully little of that in this film.

For one, I don't think showing action is the way to show the big vague feelings going on underneath it all. They're there as in life - I don't need big dramatic decisions throughout the film to tell me what's important and what's not. I think film can quite successfully achieve this feeling without doing that. I think the way you suggest is quite at odds with a big vague feeling.

I wish I hadn't orignally written "big vague" anything!
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
01:56 / 21.02.04
But when you tell the story of two people who could easily relieve themselves from the mild discomfort of their lives with a plane ticket, prepare to suck all possible dramatic tension from your movie.

Really? Because I don't think their lives are going to go away if they leave Japan. It just helps illustrates the fact, to me. Their "mild discomfort" doesn't seem that simple to me, man. I don't think it's a "go home and everything's gonna be fine" situation. I mean, if Bob goes home, does that mean he and his wife are going to live happily ever after? No. There's a reason for all these superfluous bits and peices. They're reflecting on all these things, and becoming closer because of it.

and this;

For example, I make decisions every day, all the time. I do not, however, take risks every day. I do not, every day, make decisions that threaten all the things that are important to me. Stories, at least the kind that I like, are the ones that deal with those kinds of decisions.


Why would risks add to this story? It might make it more compelling, maybe. But this is an understated film, which I think perfectly captures the alienation of just... being, frankly. Do they have to threaten everything important to them to make you care? Because the stakes are high?

There are no stakes! But I don't think that makes this aimless. The point is their lives are, pretty much, directionless/a litle lost at this point. And every shot, every scene, and every expression on Bill Murray's face serves to highlight this fact. In that sense, everything serves it's specific purpose.

I also, pretty accurately remember Bob making the actual decision to stay. He gets a fax from Charlotte, and then he phones someone and says he'll do the show. It's there, it's all there man! That's all I mean. You can see the interplay of all the relationships, the little inflections on the faces in this film tell more than any amount of dialogue, exposition and storytelling.

Ok, I'm gushing a bit, I'm pretty sure this film isn't for you - and that's ok. But to me you seem to be disliking it for all the things it isn't and you wanted it to be - and making great generalisations about how these kind of things should be portrayed, and that the only way to make it compelling or, in fact, interesting is to have big decisions and risks.

Which, it goes without saying, is against everything this film seems to be about. I mean, I find it kind of beautiful how it's played, the blossoming of this odd friendship.

And all I meant with the "death and mortality" thing, was that not everything needs to deal with BIG! IMPORTANT! stuff to be important and/or successful and effective. See;

I don't think priveleged people have no right to feel things (Hamlet was an excellent call), but, Hamlet's father was murdered, and then the murderer married Hamlet's mom. I can get behind that. There is drama there.

I mean, it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot there - privelaged people can feel as long as there's real DRAMA! Not any of this angsty reflective aimless wondering about your life that real people do all the time. And it's not like they're not aware of their state in the film - and for me, it's key, these are some the most well rounded characters I've seen. I think it's beautifully portrayed. Yeah, they say things you might not agree with, but who doesn't?


I'll admit, I do really love this film. I can understand you not liking the film, but I can't understand the way you seem to be blaming it for being wrong, because as far as I can see, it does exactly what it sets out to. By all means, this just seems to be something that's not made to your specifications of what makes a compelling story - personally, I like to see these kind of emotions really pinned down in films like this. It might not be the most engaging tale of risks and rewards, but it's intriguing and perplexing in it's own right - a way that feels very real to me.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
02:38 / 21.02.04
I mean, it seems like you're shooting yourself in the foot there - privelaged people can feel as long as there's real DRAMA! Not any of this angsty reflective aimless wondering about your life that real people do all the time.

If you were either of their friends, in real life, you wouldn't have verbally smacked them? Before Sunrise, there's plenty of angsty reflective aimless wondering, but you know what? That film was outrageously compelling. A shot clock helps.

And it's not like they're not aware of their state in the film - and for me, it's key, these are some the most well rounded characters I've seen. I think it's beautifully portrayed. Yeah, they say things you might not agree with, but who doesn't?

It's not about disagreement. They're just boring to me.

I'll admit, I do really love this film. I can understand you not liking the film, but I can't understand the way you seem to be blaming it for being wrong, because as far as I can see, it does exactly what it sets out to. By all means, this just seems to be something that's not made to your specifications of what makes a compelling story - personally, I like to see these kind of emotions really pinned down in films like this. It might not be the most engaging tale of risks and rewards, but it's intriguing and perplexing in it's own right - a way that feels very real to me.

Nah, I'm actually trying desperately to make it clear it's a film I don't really like, as opposed to a film that's in someway wrong. I'm probably not doing it very well.

I can definitely see why some people would find it compelling watching people sort of lilt through 90 collected minutes of their lives, I can also see the benefits of really examining the surface of a film to uncover what's beneath it (and yes, there's plenty to read on Mr. Murray's face. He's a freaking wonderland of acting chops, no lie.)

Priveleged people can feel whatever they want (I mean, have you seen Rich Girls?) but I'm sure there's a diagram somewhere that explains at exactly what point their problems outweigh the enormous benefits of said privelege and we begin to venture into the area where I actually empathize.

But then, you have Citizen Kane. But then, he was, like, dying.

I'm sure I've shot myself in the foot several during the course of this conversation. I just didn't like the movie. Clearly there are those who did.

On a whole (see: What Time Is It There?, Before Sunrise) I really love movies where "very little happens". Things don't always need to "happen". People can just talk and talk and, usually, I'll be all over it. For whatever reason, this was not one of those films.

Honestly, when I think about it, the thing I keep going back to was the painfully laconic editing. Like, travelogue editing. Like the whole movie was that sequence in Trainspotting when Renton arrives in London, only that was on a 45 and this is at 33?

Personally, and this is a purely technical preference, I don't think that kind of pacing works with the kind of handheld photography she used in the film. Look at Kubrick. He shot the slowest movies on Earth, but worked because the camera never flopped around and what not.

I have no idea where any of this is getting anyone. To me? It was just totally meh. There are probably more/other/better/more eloquent reasosns.
 
 
CameronStewart
03:55 / 21.02.04
On the shower-head scene: it seems as though people are perceiving Bob trying to adjust the shower-head and squeeze under it as some kind of silly stereotypical height joke - "Ho ho, Japanese people are so short!"

But in truth the shower-head is low because typically, Japanese people *sit* rather than stand when they use the shower. I stayed with a family in Tokyo and every day I had to adjust that damn shower-head from waist height to up over my head.

Just thought I'd clear that up because I've seen a lot of people here and elsewhere cite that scene as crass racial humour, and I don't think it's anything of the sort.

Jack Fear - unbelievably perceptive post, well done. I just finished watching the film about 15 minutes ago and reading that made me want to go back and see it again already...
 
 
wicker woman
06:15 / 21.02.04
Hmm. I definitely fall in the camp of 'loved it'.

Benjamin, I think one of the major flaws with your argument comes in bringing up the comparison of 'Lost' to Hamlet, but that you can't feel sympathy with characters that could simply buy a plane ticket and wing their way home. Charlotte is 'stuck' to her fiancee, and Bob is stuck by his 'obligations' to the life he's created for himself, not to mention a wife that he's decididely reluctant to go home to (the carpet sample bit was very good, btw.) I'm wondering if that isn't the ultimate trap of american dramatic filmmaking, that we have to have it thrown in our faces rather than seeing the simple enjoyment two strangers find in each other's company.

In the end, it's an uplifting story because they find a renewal of spirit through each other.

On a side note, am I the only one that thought these beautiful things that Charlotte was seeing when she was off by herself (the wedding, the flower arrangement, etc.) seemed empty somehow because she wasn't sharing them with Bob? I mean, she just kind of plops the flowers in the pot as told, without any real enthusiasm (granted, we didn't see a whole lot after that.) And you'll have to excuse my naievete, but what is the 'tying paper to the tree' part? I have to admit, I've never heard of that.
The only problem I had with the movie; what was with that horrible matte shot when he was on the golf course?? Good lord, I'm sure there's no shortage of beautiful golf courses in Japan, but I was half expecting the background to start rippling.
 
 
Suedey! SHOT FOR MEAT!
11:41 / 21.02.04
That's cool, Benjamin! I think maybe we both just had a bit of trouble clarifying what we were attempting to say, or something. I can totally get people not liking it, I wasn't sure of it myself for a long time in the first viewing.

I must say though, if I was friends with either of these people, I probably wouldnt notice any terrible flaw in their characters. I dunno, I just think it seems that way because they're on a cinema screen. I think their problems are pretty valid. There might be a little verbal smack - but there's nobody there to do that. I kind of feel this way about the supposed "racism" as well, it's only a problem because what's actually there (in Japan) is presented "as is" - and it's the same with the people. Some people watching this film don't like the people, fair enough, and it seems some people see racism where there's probably none. I think we can leave that issue for now (and forever!) though.

I did actually watch this again, last night, and it's the perfect film to watch at about 2am.
 
 
Yotsuba & Benjamin!
11:44 / 21.02.04
Benjamin, I think one of the major flaws with your argument comes in bringing up the comparison of 'Lost' to Hamlet, but that you can't feel sympathy with characters that could simply buy a plane ticket and wing their way home. Charlotte is 'stuck' to her fiancee, and Bob is stuck by his 'obligations' to the life he's created for himself, not to mention a wife that he's decididely reluctant to go home to (the carpet sample bit was very good, btw.)

Yeah, the Hamlet thing is pretty sloppy. But, it's not that I can't feel sympathy for them, it's that I don't feel like it. I don't think I can only feel sympathy for rich people if their parents are murdered, on paper, I can feel sympathy for both of those situations, Bob's and Charlotte's. Just, you know, could you try and make it a little bit visually/temporally compelling? The problem is the lack of any interpersonal conflict for nearly half of the film. There's so many scenes that are merely exposition: Bob goes golfing. Charlotte goes to an ancient shrine. Bob goes swimming. Yes, you can tack on whatever significance you want to those sequences, where decisions are bubbling under the surface, but, you know, I just do not see it. I see so much written on how this movie brilliantly "captures the alienation of just...being". Are you guys really saying that you can't see how someone could see that as relentlessly boring? Especially because the movie, on paper, is not just about being, it's about interpersonal relationships. All I wanted was to see more of that. If you were harboring any sort of feelings for someone you just met, you were in bed with them, and at some point your feet touched, you wouldn't, something, at that point, wouldn't happen? You'd bring it up awkardly or maybe try and take it a little further or something other than fading to black?

I'm wondering if that isn't the ultimate trap of american dramatic filmmaking, that we have to have it thrown in our faces rather than seeing the simple enjoyment two strangers find in each other's company.

I, personally, don't need anything thrown in my face. Is that the only option? Either really sloppily drawn out film or HEY BUDDY TAKE MY BACK UP 9mm BECAUSE I'VE ONLY GOT ONE DAY LEFT UNTIL RETIREMENT, I'M DYING, AND YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE OUT REGRANZA BY YOURSELF?

Well, that's just fucking sad.

Understated films that work for me, in no particular order:
Rushmore
Tokyo Story
Good Morning
Before Sunrise
What Time Is It There?
The Man Who Wasn't There

Actually, that last one is a good one to focus on for a second, as it may go a bit further to proving my point. Ostensibly, that film is also about the same things, it "captures the alienation of just...being". There are many reasons, however, that it works for me. It's shot within an inch of its life. It's written within an inch of its life. It also involves compelling (in the literal sense, or perhaps "propelling") plot elements. Ed, is, if anything, a zillion times more resigned than Bob is, and hey, he even forms a relationship with Scarlett Johanson, much younger than he. But seeing as how the Coen Brothers have a bit more of a realistic take on human relationships (as far as my experience goes), that relationship ends in miscommunication and awkwardness.

I've heard lots of people say, about many things not limited to Lost In Translation, "Why can't we just see a relationship that's like my relationship, where nothing happens and we're just enjoying each other's company?"

I could see that just walking up and down the hallways of my office, watching the gentle coy banter between the boss and the secretary, the mild flirting among the coworker, et al. But, if you're going to expect me to pay you money to tell me a story, just adding a change of venue is not going to do it for me.

Also, I hope that's really not the sum total of anyone's relationship.

the simple enjoyment two strangers find in each other's company.

I thoroughly enjoyed that in Before Sunrise, it's one of my favorite movies, and all they do is talk to each other. But there's a Damocles thing going on, and also it doesn't take them very long to bring up the nature of their relationship, which Bob and Charlotte, after over a week together don't bother doing and thus, the relationship itself, doesn't seem to have any meaning.

Perhaps it was...Lost....in the Translation...
 
 
CameronStewart
14:58 / 21.02.04
>>>And you'll have to excuse my naievete, but what is the 'tying paper to the tree' part? I have to admit, I've never heard of that.<<<

Again, this is something I did when I was in Japan. It's a popular practice when visiting Japanese temples to receive an omikuji, a piece of paper with a fortune or prophecy written on it. You get your omikuji by randomly drawing a stick with a number on it out of a container, and then matching the number to a corresponding drawer. If the fortune you receive is good, indicating prosperity or health or whatever, you're meant to keep it with you - if the fortune is bad, you can dispel its effects by tying it to the branch of the tree.

I doubt Charlotte understood what she was doing in this scene - the omikuji that I had was multilingual, because it was in a large temple in Tokyo, and I also was with friends who explained the whole ritual to me, but if I remember correctly Charlotte was alone in Kyoto when she did this, where English is almost entirely nonexistent, so to her the paper probably was to her just a mess of indecipherable characters and the act of tying it to the tree meaningless.
 
 
LDones
22:27 / 21.02.04
Birdie:

Why does enjoyment of the film hinge on sympathy for Bob and Charlotte? If you don't like the characters that's another issue, but I'm dumbfounded as to why anyone should feel sympathy for them.

And are you sincerely saying that the reason the relationship is meaningless to you is because it isn't spelled out explicitly in dialogue in the film?

It's not a puzzle box. There isn't suppsoed to be suspense.
 
  

Page: 12(3)456

 
  
Add Your Reply