I just saw Lost in Translation

[acrossthesea]

As someone who lived in Japan for 2 years, it made me happy. Nevermind that it doesn't have much of a plot, I spent the time recognizing places I've been. I don't think it insults Japanese culture the way some people think it does. I think it does a very good job overall of revealing how an american with little or no japanese language skills would feel when in that place. And how the time difference can cause extreme jetlag and insomnia.

I particularly liked the shots of people sitting in the hotel windows with Tokyo behind them because the quality of the lighting is exactly how it looks there on a hazy early morning.

Does anyone know exactly when this movie was shot? It looks to me like late spring/early summer, but when, 2002?

I've only been back in the states for a week now, and already this movie has me missing japan!

[flonks]

Slight hijack, sorry:

May I ask you if you have japanese friends there? I ask because if everything works out as I plan then I will go there as well. I heard stories about foreigners living only with foreigners because the cultures are so different ...

[Munch]

I saw Lost in Translation 3 weeks ago. I just woke up.

[Sampiro]

I saw Lost in Translation 3 weeks ago. I just woke up.

I'm so glad that somebody else said that. I watched the movie expecting something wonderful and Oscar worthy and was just extremely unimpressed; I thought it was just me.

[Exapno Mapcase]

And Scarlett Johansson CAN'T ACT!

There. I've said it and I'm glad.


Sorry, acrossthesea. I'm sure that the movie meant a lot more to you, and I'm glad that you liked it. But like sampiro and Munch, I was incredibly disappointed by how poorly done the movie actually was compared to the reviews it was getting.

[UrbanChic]

sobbing...I'm not the only one! Thank heaven! I didn't like that movie at all. I like visually appealing, dialogue driven movies (Snow Falling on Cedars, Big Eden, Character) . Lost in Translation was a HUGE disappointment. Boring is an understatement, if you ask me.

[YellowTail]

Yeah, but the scene on the jogging machine was funny!

[Gadarene]

*shrug* Different tastes. I thought the movie was damn good.

[Elysian]

I thought the movie was pretty good until the adultery part. Seems to me like pretty much every movie out of Hollywood these days has an adultery theme to it. I get very very sick of it. I'm a loyal faithful person, and I have a husband who is the same, and it seems like Hollywood is trying to make adultery seems normal, like everyone does it.

Well, everyone DOESN'T do it. I can name a dozen couples off the top of my head who never would think about cheating. I get so sick of having this message that adultery is okay and forgiveable shoved down my throat. It's NOT normal, it's NOT forgiveable, and any movie that says it's about friendship when it's really about being a cheating fuckwad and which suckers me into watching it is a piece of crap.

I really don't think Murray deserved an Oscar nomination for his performance. He was playing himself, after all. How hard could that be?

[Gadarene]

He was playing himself, after all. How hard could that be?

Stupid question, but: How in the world do you know he was playing himself?

[DooWahDiddy]

I...and it seems like Hollywood is trying to make adultery seems normal, like everyone does it.

Trust me, if this was your standard "Hollywood" movie, they would have had Murray and Johannson humping before the third frame. And I didn't get that it was "forgiveable"... it was just something that happened. You think you know couples who wouldn't think of cheating? That's like saying you know that Bill Murray was playing himself.

As for the OP, it doesn't indicate when, but the imdb states that filming only took 27 days.

[ftg]

Best movie I've seen since Pulp Fiction. Absolutely great!

I really feel sorry for those of you who haven't "seen" the film. It is so full of small things and has tremendous depth.

I note that a couple posters are confusing the traits of the characters with the actors. That's something you should work on.

One of the reasons Bill Murray has been so honored for this role is that he isn't playing himself. (Which is also why it didn't attract the usual Caddy Shack crowd.)

Both stars won BAFTAs and a heck of a lot of other (esp. critics') awards. It had more "rave" reviews than any other film released in 2003.

[Rillian]

Does anyone know exactly when this movie was shot? It looks to me like late spring/early summer, but when, 2002?


The documentary on the making of "Lost in Translation" on the DVD reveals that the movie was filmed in September, all in Tokyo, at the Park Hyatt, on location, and certain scenes on a sound stage (e.g. the commercial shoot, the photo shoot, and, IIRC, the hotel bar). With editing and post-production time, I assume it as in 2002.

[robo99]

An artsy Bill Murray film does not a good movie make.

[Miller]

I thought the movie was pretty good until the adultery part. Seems to me like pretty much every movie out of Hollywood these days has an adultery theme to it. I get very very sick of it. I'm a loyal faithful person, and I have a husband who is the same, and it seems like Hollywood is trying to make adultery seems normal, like everyone does it.

Well, everyone DOESN'T do it. I can name a dozen couples off the top of my head who never would think about cheating. I get so sick of having this message that adultery is okay and forgiveable shoved down my throat. It's NOT normal, it's NOT forgiveable, and any movie that says it's about friendship when it's really about being a cheating fuckwad and which suckers me into watching it is a piece of crap.


Wow. Issues much? The reason you see so many movies about adultery is pretty simple: it's more interesting than fidelity. I'm not saying you can't make a good movie about a married couple that doesn't cheat on each other, but adultery brings in illicit sex, betrayal, revenge, redemption, forgiveness, and a host of other factors that are dramatic gold. It's a useful vice for a main character because it's about as awful a thing someone can do that doesn't require police intervention. Plus, it's commonplace enough that most everyone in the audience is going to be able to sympathize with at least one party in the affair.

And damn few movies present adultery as a good thing. Lost in Translation sure as hell didn't. It's portrayed as a tragic outcome of a failing marriage, and an act of betrayal not so much against his wife (who, it seems, could give a shit what Murray does) as against Johansson's character, who had seen him as a role-model for how to have a successful marriage. The act itself is pathetic, it's not an act of passion so much as desperation. The movie isn't promoting adultery, it's serving as a warning against it: it's saying, "Don't be like this. Don't let yourself end up like this guy's, because he's fucking miserable. Don't make the mistakes he made."

In case it ain't clear, I loved the shit out of this movie. Absolutely beautiful movie. Murray was robbed at the Oscars.

[HomerIU]

Add me to the people disappointed in the film. It had its moments and it was somewhat though provoking, but it wasn't as good as expected. I thought Bill Murray was great in the movie and did not get the impression he was playing himself. I actually was thinking this was more of a role very similar to the one he played in....I'm blanking on the name, but the movie where he is rich guy and becomes friends with the precocious high school student, then they argue over the teacher because they are both in love with her. I can't believe I can't think of the name.

[Miller]

Rushmore.

[Mesquite-oh]

Put me in the "I was sooo looking forward to this movie and then ended up being pissed off after I endured it" group. For some reason, every critic adored this movie. I love Bill Murray, I like quiet understated movies from time to time, but this movie actually angered me. If I had to sit through one more scene of Bill being grouchy and Scarlet walking around in a daze all goo goo eyed I would have walked out. I did not care one bit about either one of these characters, in fact, they annoyed the hell out of me. I would have enjoyed it if in the last scene- while they were feeling all lonely, lost, empty, and sorry about their miserable existence, they would have been hit by a bus filled with those wacky "look how different we are from you Americans" Japanese citizens. At least that would have led to some sort of plot movement.

[Kaitlyn]

Lost in Translation was my pick for best movie of the year. Movies that are entirely about character development are nearly unheard of in American film, and that it's done so well here makes it even more special.

But what do I know. My second favorite movie of last year was about a boy who loses his sister's shoes.

[manx]

But what do I know. My second favorite movie of last year was about a boy who loses his sister's shoes.

and it was called...? No really, it sounds.. odd. And odd is interesting, to me anyway

[notquitekarpov]

I saw it on an airplane the other week - now I enjoyed it and it was refreshing to see a "different" film to the Hollywood norm but (and this is probably going make the "it was so boring" crowd smile) I must have missed the bit were they actually committ adultery!!

Now I hope I was simply in the queue for the loo at the time and didn't drop off ( ;) ) but perhaps it said something that I could enjoy it with the idea that even less happened by way of plot development than was actually the case!

I went away thinking it was a modern take on "Brief Encounter", over might-have- beens, hey maybe I'm going to have to see it again :D. I was chuckling out loud at the opening scenes of Murray's arrival which I tried to avoid on airplane nightflights....

[jjimm]

I bloody loved it. It doesn't have a plot - that's the point! It's about atmosphere and character. I almost resented some of the slapstick moments. Are people disappointed because it was marketed as a comedy or something?

And it accurately reflected my experience of Tokyo.

[flonks]

notquitekarpov, Murray didn't sleep with the girl (forgot her name). He slept with the singer of hotel bar a night when he was really bored.

[Chastain86]

Just watched this last night.

I've noticed a trend of movies lately in which it's hip to say, "Don't impose your wishes on the film, just watch it for what it is." And I have to say, I could nearly enjoy it on its own terms that way.

However.

As my own personal preference, I need a movie to contain more than simple character development in order to retain my interest. It is entirely possible to make a movie with personal character development that actually manages to weave in some semblance of a plot.

I'm not getting down on people who DON'T require a plot. I'm just saying, I do. And I think the people who are the loudest detractors of the film feel the same way, although some might also be unhappy about the lack of car chases and explosions. To each his own, I s'pose.

The film felt unfinished. It had some character development, sure...but it was neither satisfying nor insightful in any way.

I'm not dumber for having seen it or anything. I'm frankly a little flummoxed about the movie it could have been.

[Munch]

I really feel sorry for those of you who haven't "seen" the film. It is so full of small things and has tremendous depth.
I'm so sick of hearing stuff like this.

"People who don't like this film just enjoy explosions."
"If you don't like this movie, you don't like character development."
"This movie perfectly translates the emotions of lonliness and jet lag."

Yeah? Well there's a guy in Toronto who has developed a machine that perfectly translates the emotions of being kicked squarely in the scrotum. It's called his foot. I'm not signing up anytime soon, simply because getting kicked squarely in the nads is not enjoyable. Lonliness and jet lag are also not enjoyable, and there's no reason to endure a 23 hour movie to sympathize with those emotions.

[Sampiro]

I'm so sick of hearing stuff like this.

"People who don't like this film just enjoy explosions."
"If you don't like this movie, you don't like character development."
"This movie perfectly translates the emotions of lonliness and jet lag."



[Mini-rant aimed at nobody in particular]

That is my ultimate pet-peeve where movies, books, art, plays, etc., are concerned.

Note this sentence (capitalized and italicized for emphasis):

"I DID NOT LIKE THIS [B]MOVIE/PLAY/BOOK/PAINTING/ETC."

Now note this sentence:

[I]"I DID NOT [B][I]UNDERSTAND THIS MOVIE/PLAY/BOOK/PAINTING/ETC."

The verb "like" is not synonymous with the verb "understand". I understood American Quilt, Pi and Braveheart just fine; I just didn't like them.

[/Mini-rant aimed at nobody in particular]

[gobear]

The verb "like" is not synonymous with the verb "understand". I understood American Quilt, Pi and Braveheart just fine; I just didn't like them.
Granted, but sometimes people do dislike movies because the movie is over their heads. Criticizing LiT for not having a plot indicates that person did not, in fact, understand that movie. LiT is about two lost people adrift in an alien world who manage to make a brief emotional connection.

And watching Lit made me miss Japan, especially when Scarlett Johanssen visited the Heian Shrine in Kyoto.

[widdershins]

I finally saw it last week, I liked it, but was not blown away or captivated the way the some have been.

I thought Murray and Johannson were good, especially Murray. It was a movie driven by the characters rather than a structured plot, so the acting has to bee good for it to work. It was a tale of two lonely foreigners finding a bond of friendship while stuck far from home in a country where neither spoke the language and they had too much time on their hands.

At least the story didn't follow the usual formula of having the leads fall into bed as has been pointed out. I did think the one night stand with the singer was believable, I just wish the movie hadn't then turned to formula by having the leads have a falling out when Johannson found out about it the next morning. I was also a little disappointed when he went back and found her when he was leaving to say goodbye and whisper whatever he idd in her ear, that struck as too formulaic as well. And count me in on resenting the overt slapstick moments.

I liked the extra on the DVD with the extended version of the goofy "Mathew's Best Hit TV" talk show segment. The interview with Coppola and Murray was okay, but she has all the charisma of a paper sack full of mud.

I have one background question about the movie: Was Charlotte's husband John, played by Giovanni Ribisi, supposed to be based on Sofia Coppola's own (now ex, I think) husband Spike Jonze? His performance reminded me of interviews I've seen of Jonze.

[Barbarian]

Don't go there gobear or I'll have to make you write up a 6000 word essay examining the plot convolutions of my lava lamp.

I made all my recommendations against seeing LiT in this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=242271). I'm just sorry that more people didn't read them.

[Gatopescado]

Ha! I didn't even the movie!

Just wanted to say that the folks who are claiming Bill Murry was playing himself got that idea from the article in Rolling Stone, where thats pretty much exactly what they wanted us to think.

[ISiddiqui]

*shrug* Different tastes. I thought the movie was damn good.

I agree. My favorite movie of the year. An absolutely stunning film, IMO. Bill and Scarlett were just incredible. I soo wanted it to win Best Picture, but alas, I knew it was not meant to be.

But I'm confused about the 'adultery' parts. WHAT adultery parts? That was the whole point... they don't sleep together, they are just incredibly close friends for that week.

[Chastain86]

But I'm confused about the 'adultery' parts. WHAT adultery parts? That was the whole point... they don't sleep together, they are just incredibly close friends for that week.

The adultery in question was Bill Murray and the lounge singer.

Oh, and I don't know if you're married or not, but do us a favor -- you try explaining to your wife or S.O. that you've met, been hanging out in bed with, and occasionally kissing a woman some 20+ years your junior whilst on a business trip. :eek:

Like a lead balloon, kiddo.

[acrossthesea]

Slight hijack, sorry:

May I ask you if you have japanese friends there? I ask because if everything works out as I plan then I will go there as well. I heard stories about foreigners living only with foreigners because the cultures are so different ...


I didn't have regular japanese friends. I lived on a US air force base, where there are quite a few japanese people, but since they are either military spouses or base employees they're caught up in that Little America thing too.

[Starving Artist]

Um...can't we all just get along? :D

[Miller]

Granted, but sometimes people do dislike movies because the movie is over their heads. Criticizing LiT for not having a plot indicates that person did not, in fact, understand that movie. LiT is about two lost people adrift in an alien world who manage to make a brief emotional connection.

And watching Lit made me miss Japan, especially when Scarlett Johanssen visited the Heian Shrine in Kyoto.

I have to disagree with you there, gobear. Not about the quality of the movie, or what it was about, but about wether not liking it for not having much in the way of a plot means the viewer didn't "get it." I loved the movie because I'm a firm believer that character is king when it comes to movies, but that doesn't mean that's the only way to appreciate it. If someone likes plot-driven movies, they're not going to like LiT. It doesn't mean they don't get it, it just means they don't like what they're getting. If someone said, "Bill Murray should have totally nailed that chick! She was totally hot!" that would be an example of "not getting" the film. Saying, "I didn't like the lack of plot," is just preference.

[HomerIU]

Again, I was disappointed in the movie, but there was some depth to it and it certainly was not the typical Hollywood movie, at least. I guess it was different than what I expected and different from most other movies that came out last year, so for that I give it credit.

I disagree that it has no plot. It is not just about two random strangers sharing some lonely moments. There is more to it than that. There is some symmetry to their lives. Bill Murray is the husband on a business trip in Tokyo, while she is the wife left behind while her husband goes on a business trip. I viewed it partially as a chance for them to peek into the lives of their spouses while they are apart. They are also at opposite ends of life. She has a whole future ahead of her and does not know what to do with her life. To make matters worse, it seems her husband is making strides in his career while she cannot even pick a career. He is a "has been" actor that is left doing spot gigs in foreign countries. It makes you wonder which one of them is in the worse situation. None of this is "verbalized" in the movie, but at the same time it does not go "unsaid." I'll give it credit for communicating all of this quietly, but at the same time they went to a bit of an extreme in the lack of dialogue. It went a bit overboard in the akward small talk category.

[Astroboy14]

Bill Murray should have totally nailed that chick! She was totally hot!

No, not really... I got the movie. It just bored the hell out of me and Astrogirl, to the point where, mid-movie, she turned to me and said, "Interesting?" I replied, "God no! What was that other movie we rented?"

We watched The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen instead of finishing LiT. All-in-all, I'd have to say that was one of our less-successful trips to Blockbuster.

(Scarlett is hot tho...)

[Kaitlyn]

and it was called...? No really, it sounds.. odd. And odd is interesting, to me anyway

Children of Heaven. It's an Iranian film about a boy who loses his sister's shoes, so that they have to share his shoes to go to school. It's a pretty simple film, but very well done.

[litost]

There was depth in this film only in comparison to the average Hollywood fare. LIT can be seen more than once, it is definitely entertaining in parts... I just don't see where the profundity and great character development kicks in. You want to watch character development, pick a Mike Leigh film (e.g: Secrets and Lies) or see a sadly under-watched beaut, My Beautiful Laundrette.

[cmkeller]

Add me to the "disappointed" camp. Maybe it's because I like movies with a little plot. Any plot. Maybe it's because the movie spends almost an hour with the two main characters moping depressingly about before they even meet. Please, that could have been reduced to 10 minutes...I got the picture, they're both bored in a place they can't relate to. Maybe it's because the dialog is so sparse and difficult to hear over the din of Tokyo life that I felt like I was missing something the whole time. Heck, maybe it's because I like Roger Moore's James Bond and it's very, very clear (in that one little scene) that we the audience are expected to think of that as one of the eccentricities of Japanese culture while someone from a normal culture would know that Connery is superior.

All I know is that I rented it last night to view with my wife, parents-in-law and sister-in-law, and not only did none of us enjoy it, I was unexpectedly embarrassed by a scene in a strip club where the music booms "If you wanna suck my titties" over and over.

So much for me ever trusting in film critics ever again.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Right, so much for film critics, and for the Academy.

I heard great things about this movie and I have to say, I was extremely disappointed in the screenplay and the direction (although mostly the screenplay).

Please don't tell me I didn't get it. I appreciated the shots of Japanese culture, the strangeness of it all, and the characters' disorientation. I laughed when the long stream of Japanese turned out to mean "turn and look at the camera." I thought Bill Murray did a great job and Scarlett what's-her-name did a lousy job (I found the English-with-accent more understandable than about half of her dialogue). But as to character study, I didn't see it. What character arc? And then there was the great cliche of him jumping out of the car and running off to say the final goodbye. Oh, puh-leeze. A great ending could have saved it, but it didn't happen.

If I had paid money to rent this I would be pissed. Gotta love Netflix.

I think the Oscar for best screenplay was some kind of kiss-up from the Academy.

[Lamar Mundane]

I own fewer than 20 films on CD, but I bought this one. I loved it.

Having said that, I am not at all surpised that so many people here don't like it. Look at the threads here in Cafe Society and see which ones get read/posted to - Not fiction, unless you preface it with "Science". Its all about action films, video games, and comics. There just aren't a lot of people here who care about films that only offer mood and atmosphere and require the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions (that sounds snarky and I don't mean it to be).

Open any thread about movies here (best film, best line, best scene, whatever) and it won't go five posts before The Matrix or a Lord of the Rings trilogy is mentioned. Generally, people who love one won't care too much for the other. At least that is my experience.

A few years ago, I read Plainsong (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375705856/qid=1089070864/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-8230340-0096661?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and wanted to start a thread about it because I thought it was so great, but while composing it I gave up because there are probably only a couple of dozen people here who have read it, and if anyone bought it on my recommendation, I'd find myself in the pit in no time.

Nobody is right or wrong here, just different.

[Qadgop the Mercotan]

Nobody is right or wrong here, just different.
If one could just convey that idea to the majority of dopers here, then we we members of the SDMB could really fight ignorance!

BTW, I loved LOTR and Lost in Translation.

[Lamar Mundane]

If one could just convey that idea to the majority of dopers here, then we we members of the SDMB could really fight ignorance!

BTW, I loved LOTR and Lost in Translation.

So did I, truth be told.

[RickJay]

I like movies with explosions just fine. I also liked "Lost in Translation."

Was it heavy on plot? No, and that's fine with me; two thirds of all movies are overplotted anyway. It was a movie that dealt more with atmosphere and imagery, and that was fine by me. It did what it set out to do. I enjoyed every minute of it. I thought the scene of Murray trying to talk to his wife on the phone, while sitting in the bath, was especially effective.

[Yookeroo]

I loved 'em both too.

[Miller]

BTW, I loved LOTR and Lost in Translation.

Ditto.

[Hilarity N. Suze]

Well, I love movies, and I'm rarely sorry I've seen one (and in the case of LIT I'm not at all saying I'm sorry I saw it). It was just a letdown, that's all.

It is a funny thing about taste, though, because I like action movies as well as the next person but I much prefer character-driven movies. LIT seemed to me to have more in common with action flicks in the sense of moving from incident to incident.

The person who recommended this movie so highly spent her senior year of high school in Japan. After a few weeks of orientation she was 100 miles from anyone who spoke English. She and I are generally on exactly the same page when it comes to movies, but here we diverged. Maybe if I'd seen it with her, in a theatre, instead of with my grumpy husband (who wanted to know why every single movie I got from Netflix had a theme of adultery), on my teensy-weensy TV, it would have had more appeal for me. Or maybe I would have to have visited/lived in Japan to get whatever she got.

I believe I would still think the ending sucked, though. (As opposed to American Beauty which I'm convinced I liked in large part because of the ending.)

(One thing my friend said that was interesting to me. Not knowing the language or the customs she kept asking her hosts if she was doing it right/saying it right, and the answer was always "yes," because she was an honored guest and therefore they could not say she had made any kind of mistake. Naturally it took her a bit to catch on that this was happening because as far as she could tell she was doing everything perfectly! Hard to learn when you don't get honest feedback. So she then had to figure out how to recast her questions so she DID get honest feedback. But then she was never really sure.)

[carmine]

I find it fascinating how vastly different people's preferences and aesthetics can be. This comment hammers that home to me:

An artsy Bill Murray film does not a good movie make.

Every arguably "artsy" film that Bill Murray has made ranks highly in my Favorite Films of All Time list.

While I loved LiT, I can understand why people don't. Your reaction is probably akin to mine when Nicolas Cage was so lauded for his role in Leaving Las Vegas, a performance that I loathed beyond comprehension.

[Askance]

I thought the movie was pretty good until the adultery part. Seems to me like pretty much every movie out of Hollywood these days has an adultery theme to it. I get very very sick of it. I'm a loyal faithful person, and I have a husband who is the same, and it seems like Hollywood is trying to make adultery seems normal, like everyone does it.

Well, everyone DOESN'T do it. I can name a dozen couples off the top of my head who never would think about cheating. I get so sick of having this message that adultery is okay and forgiveable shoved down my throat. It's NOT normal, it's NOT forgiveable, and any movie that says it's about friendship when it's really about being a cheating fuckwad and which suckers me into watching it is a piece of crap.


LiT does not say adultery is "about friendship", or normal, or forgiveable, at all. Do you really believe, as you appear to, that the mere portrayal of adultery is somehow promoting it in those ways?

BTW I would bet dollars to donuts that some of those dozen couples you mention have thought about adultery. How would you know if they had?

[Kobaltblu]

A few years ago, I read Plainsong (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375705856/qid=1089070864/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/103-8230340-0096661?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) and wanted to start a thread about it...

I wish you had stareted that thread. I love Kent Haruf's work. I used to work at a bookstore. We got an advance copy of "Where You Once Belonged". That book was so moving, so proufoundly tragic, written in spare prose that seemed like verse. It was especially heartbreaking at the end because of how awful the event that climaxes the book is, after how much you'd gotten to love and hope for the characters. 

Sorry to have hijacked the thread...
My partner bought LIT for me as a gift. He got it because I kept bugging him to go see it with me, but he didn't want to, and when he finally consented, it had already left the theaters.

When I was going to university, it was my first experience in a big city. I went to LA awestruck and hopeful, marvelling at its glamorous appeal. It gave me experiences I never expected. In a way, it was very much like being in a foreign country, it was so unfamiliar. At the time, I was estranged from my family, because of my abusive and violent father, so I spent all of my holidays on the campus, along with a few foreign students. I did what the girl's character did, wander around the city, curious about everything, a bit apprehensive, hoping to make a connection with someone. I recall once walking on Flower St in downtown on my way to the Temporary Contemporary Museum, and being struck by a wave of feeling that I later realized was loneliness.

This movie brought that time back. LIT wasn't just about being in a foreign country with language and customs unfamiliar; it was about a disconnectedness, a feeling of being lost in thought, a fear of having lost one's way. I  understand some might mistake the character's actions as being adulterous,; this would be a slight misinterpretation of what was occuring with these two. They were both lost in their lives, but found sometihing familiar in each other. That their spouses seemed to have made shut them out isn't meant to excuse their connection but assists in awakening their acknowledgement of loss and unease. The moment that seemed most to be like a betrayal is when the Scarlett Johansesen's character discovers Bill's one night stand. She is at first icy and sarcastic during their tense lunch, but both come to realize that he was acting out the more commonplace method of connecting through the lounge singer something he'd really felt for her.

I was thinking about the films of Alan Pakula recently, and sad that current films telegraph ideas and story so blatantly, whereas his films worked like LIT, collecting images and character interactions that showed the viewer the feeling that was meant to be conveyed. It spoke to one's intelligence as a viewer to interpret and not only understand the story, but to feel it as an undercurrent of emotion as well.

[Already in Use]

Granted, but sometimes people do dislike movies because the movie is over their heads. Criticizing LiT for not having a plot indicates that person did not, in fact, understand that movie. LiT is about two lost people adrift in an alien world who manage to make a brief emotional connection.Yeah, got that. So in lieu of saying the film had "no plot," I'll say it had an incredibly flimsy plot.

Don't get me wrong; I like a lot of stories where the emphasis is on character development rather than on events. Joyce, Kafka, and other modern literature come to mind. And I really thought that the acting in LiT was great. My issue is with the writing and directing.

Maybe the problem with the plot as I perceived it was that I didn't see exactly why each scene was necessary to develop the characters or their relationship. Sure, some of them did that job decently, but others just dragged on: the party scene, the karaoke one, etc. (There were a lot more, but I saw the movie several months ago and have managed to repress most of the memories.) Most of the scenes had something to do with "people adrift in an alien world," but I thought many were redundant. The other thing that bothered me was the fact that every character in the movie except the two main ones were portrayed completely one-dimensionally. Sure, I understand that that was a deliberate choice meant to highlight the main characters' alienation from the rest of the world, but it came off as cheap and lazy to me. Plus, the ending was a gimmicky cop-out.

[Alessan]

While I liked the movie a lot, I was struck by how blatently autobiographical the main character was. I don't know how intentional this was on behalf of Coppola, but the parallels, to me, were pretty obvious.

Consider: while the Scarlett Johanssen character was supposed to be the "ordinary girl" compared to Bill Murray's worldly movie star, she was nearly as alien to me as the Japanese. She had gone to Yale and studied Philosophy - the sort of major that people take when they don't have to worry about a career. She seemed utterly comfortable with extreme luxury, and completely nonchalant, even annoyed, with meeting movie stars. And those "friends" of hers that took her out on the town - do you know those kind of people? Are you invited to those type of parties? The character was a perfect example of a person who, while not a celebrity per se, is an inhabitant of the celebrity millieu... much like the daughter of a legendary Hollywood director.

The weird thing is, I'm not sure Sofia Coppola was aware of all this. As far as she was concerned, this kind of life was perfectly normal. But I found much more in common with Murray's character who, while a celebrity, gave the impression of not being born into the life.

[litost]

Having said that, I am not at all surpised that so many people here don't like it. Look at the threads here in Cafe Society and see which ones get read/posted to - Not fiction, unless you preface it with "Science". Its all about action films, video games, and comics. There just aren't a lot of people here who care about films that only offer mood and atmosphere and require the viewer to draw his/her own conclusions (that sounds snarky and I don't mean it to be).


Why do you assume that those who don't appreciate LiT don't care about films that offer mood, atmosphere etc. I care a lot about film-making, the mood and feel of the film, the characters, the ambience etc, and I thought LiT was an ordinary film... entertaining in parts, but nothing extraordinary or special.

[Albert Rose]

I loved the film. I especially enjoyed the (admittedly redundant) scenes portraying loneliness, alienation and unexpected but welcome human connection. LiT had a personal effect on me, due to the late-night feel. I used to be up late at night, feeling lonely and alienated, and would seek out that human connection. Many scenes in the movie reminded me, in a bittersweet way, the "sad days" of my life.

But that isn't to say much about anyone else's reaction. It was just my personal reaction. I'm thinking that many people who like/love LiT are responding to their own identification with one or more of the characters. Those who didn't like the film are responding to its weaknesses. (At least, that's what I do, when I don't like a movie.)

My wife loved it, too. We both appreciated the tone, plotting and character development.