But she’s said she had lines written for the scene. So, originally at least, she DID want us to hear what Bill Murray said. I’m just wondering if this ‘brilliant’ ending was actually a last-minute edit to cover up the fact that she didn’t really have a satisfying ending. That’s not QUITE the same to me. It would be different if the entire movie had been written to lead up to this unheard moment, if it had actually been planned beforehand as an integral moment in the movie. But apparently it wasn’t. Isn’t that kind of like writing yourself into a corner with a mystery story and then, at the last minute, deciding NOT to reveal ‘whodunit’ because, well, none of the endings you can come up with is very satisfying? Like I said, I have no problem with deliberately ambiguous endings…I’d just like to think they were conceived that way in the first place.
If you can’t tell that it was a last minute addition when you watch the movie, what difference does it make if that wasn’t what the director had planned all along?
My take on the final scene is that through the whole movie, they were the outisiders, the voyeurs, alone and isolated. They didn’t hear anything important, didn’t understand what was being said to them, didn’t fit, didn’t have a place. And then in the final moments, the whole thing turned inside out. The audience, as well as Tokyo and the rest of the world, are the outsiders. We’re the ones who don’t get to hear and understand what’s being said. They’re the ones who fit, who belong, who aren’t alone anymore. When they finally “get it” the audience realizes we are the indifferent Tokyo, and we’re no longer gawking at the goofy outsiders…
IOW, the roles have been reversed.
Stephe96: you’re missing the point. We don’t hear what Bob says because it just isn’t important. The purpose of the scene is to show that he got to say a “proper goodbye” and that they didn’t part on “You stole my jacket.” The important thing is that they met and hugged and that they were relieved that it happened. We don’t hear what Bob said because it just isn’t important. This is probably why Coppola cut it from the script; any words would have diluted the meaning of the scene and distracted us from the simple fact that they met each other and said goodbye in the middle of Tokyo.
It’s a fairly standard technique. It’s not like she’s doing something unusual by deleting distracting information that isn’t important. Did you think Pulp Fiction was diminished because we didn’t know what was glowing in the briefcase? Coppola’s ending was no lazier than Tarantino’s omission.
:rolleyes: Sophia Coppola should not have been nominated for writing this film. There’s nothing written that is worth reading let alone directing. And she certainly shouldn’t have been nominated for directing. Bill Murray has done some nice work in films, but this is none of it.
This movie was designed for the Seinfeld generation about nothing for no one with no purpose.
Scarlett Johansen has a nice soft butt. Act? Hardly. She isn’t really all that attractive. Except for that nice soft butt.
Now she’s supposed to be a graduate of Yale in philosophy? I don’t think you can sit around the benches at Yale for 4 years and end up that Vacant. And she marries this photographer-groupie? With a degree in philosphy from a school where philosophy still matters?
Now let us assume you’re going to pay $2 mil for someone to make a liquor ad. And you’re not going to hire a bilingual director? And your translator is that bad. . .not if your company is paying $2 mil for this guy to sell Satori booze.
The r and l jokes were old and racist. Come on. If they had made ebola jokes the liberal media would be jumping up and down ready to rip Ms. Coppola’s flat heals off.
There is no relationship between these two people. The night they spent in Murray’s bed was embarassing. And the last scene, the only scene with some emotion. . .it’s like what the. . . . this guy has just left her and is driving to the airport in Tokyo and just now happens to see her walking down the street. . .yeah. He pulls away from some Downtown New York or La or Chicago and suddenly on the way to Kennedy or LAX or O’Hare he just happens to see this same person walking down the street. . . :eek:
Bill Murray in Japan. . .this guy is at least big enough to sell booze. He’s big enough that he has bill boards all over Tokyo. So he’s a recognizable face. He wouldn’t have to leave the hotel. . .
This whole move was lost. Lost in the making.
Murray and Johannson won the two lead acting awards at last night’s BAFTAs (the British equivalent of the Oscars). LIT was nominated for Best Picture but lost to Lord of the Rings.
I loved it but it’s mostly about the acting so those results make sense to me. It was beautifully shot too - I want to be middle class and miserable in Tokyo now;).
I loved LiT. I hate Seinfeld. I never understood exactly how Seinfeld was supposed to be a “show about nothing.” It seemed to have all the familiar sitcom plots and conceits. Similarly, I disagree that LiT was “about nothing.” It had a definite plot, with an arc and an act structure and everything. Clearly, it wasn’t “for no one,” because there are enough people who really, really liked this film that it’s up for a passle of Oscars. And as for having no purpose… What purpose is a film supposed to have?
What sort of person are you supposed to marry if you’ve got a degree in philosophy? I didn’t realize there was a requirement. I’ve got a B.A. in literature from a state university? Who am I supposed to marry?
Is this a criticism based on first hand knowledge of how Japanese ad companies work, or just your impression of how they “should” work? Also, on what basis do you say the translator was “bad”? Was it the whole thing where her translations seemed too short? See, the idea there was, the director is pissed at Bill Murray and is ranting at him, but the translator is too polite to give a literal translation. I thought it was pretty funny, really.
Ebola? What the hell?
That was one of the most romantic things I’ve ever seen in a movie. I’ll grant that it was slightly embarassing, in the way that watching a very personal moment between two people is embarassing, but that’s a testament to the craft of the film, that I was able to forget I was watching actors and not real people.
IIRC, they were still near the hotel they had both been staying in.
So, because he’s famous, he could never possibly be bored or depressed?
You know, this is really tremendously insulting. I liked the movie because I thought it was a great movie, not because a movie critic told me to like it. Please don’t try to tell me how my mind works, okay?
What was great about it?
I’ve read the entire thread. Where is the dramatic tension? Where is the comic hook? There is a denoument. they hug at the end. Somehow mysteriously finding each other in Tokyo.
She walks through pretty scenery.
He sits at the end of the bar drinking.
They reluctantly do things together.
Her husband is a dufus. He leaves her at the hotel. He’s only lucky she found Murray.
I did chuckle a bit at the American Movie Star. I guess she was supposed to be Diaz or someone like that. Reminded me of Sarah Michelle Gellar. But that was a one note joke played again and again and again.
Then we see all the worst of Japan. Video arcade. TV announcer. ETC. OK, balance that out with the monks. . .fine.
Will these two people ever see each other again? No. Did they exchange anything meaningful? They both own the same self help tape. Deep! He is afraid of intimacy. She is afriad of. . .what? Age? Because she certainly wants to be intimate with her husband. Come to think about it, he doesn’t mind being intimate in the one night stand with the bar singer. Parsley Sage Rosemary and Thyme. That, alone, would be enough not to sleep with her. Yet he does. But he won’t touch this woman he’s been going around town with. And even funnier, he won’t even touch the prostitute that’s sent to him earlier in the film. No reason is given for any of these actions. They each exist in isolation. He can barely talk to his wife. He has little or no relationship with his child or children.
As to her degree in philosophy from Yale. . .it wasn’t who she’d marry; it’s how vacant she is. For god sake, she’s listening to a self help tape.
Looking at both sides of the fence here, I can see why everyone’s opinion is so strongly in either direction.
The movie’s strength lies on the interaction between its characters. Nothing more. There’s no great script or plot to follow, and I thought the dialogue was lackluster. As many have pointed out, Scarlett’s character seems rather bland for someone into philosophy and as well-educated as she claims to be. I was sure that she and Murrary would have conversations that only they could have because of his maturity and her schooling. Yet it never happens. We hear trite shit like “ohhh my toe…” while the dialogue is “real”, we never see the so-called intelluctual depth that Scarlett’s character is supposed to harbor.
This isn’t an anti-LiT rant, I actually enjoyed the movie and bought it !! But I recognize WHY I like it, and its the fact that you can cut out any scene in the film (other than the meeting and ending) and it doesn’t feel any less vacant. My source of enjoyment is derived completely from how Bill & Scarlet interact, nothing more. Oh okay, I also dug watching that guy with the cigarette in his mouth playing Guitar Freaks at the arcade 
I dont think this deserves a nomination for screenplay because there’s barely any meat in the script. There arent any memorable exchanges of dialogue except for when Murrary is shooting his commercial. “More… tension?”
However I can see best Director for this, but with the other contenders out this year, I doubt its likely to win.
All in all, this is the O’Henry bar of movies, its short, sweet and wasn’t intended to be filling. And I can see how people simulatenously revile and praise this film, its just their own misconception about how movies should be made that get in the way of enjoying Lost in Translation.
I’d compare this one most to *Leaving Las Vegas *since the thrill lies mainly in the contrast of two opposites meeting and interacting with one another. Although obviously LLV is the better film cause we see Elizabeth Shue’s jubblies 
'Scuze me? Ever watched The Man Who Wasn’t There?
Saw it in the theater. Definitely liked it, but I may have liked it more had I not heard anything about it prior.
I’m surprised that in all the talk about who Bill Murray and Anna Farris are, nobody has discussed Giovanni Ribisi/Spike Jonze and Scarlett/Sofia. I heard that the story is autobiographic, which would make perfect sense as per Jonze; also that Murray’s character is based on Ford (who probably was going through marital strife around the time this took place). Just conjecture though.
She didn’t have a satisfying ending, but in the process of making the movie, found one. Lots of brilliant things come about because of happy accidents. Just because something wasn’t originally planned doesn’t make it any less great.
Actually, I didn’t think the movie was quite THAT bad. I’m also sort of “on the fence” about this movie, too. It SEEMS like the kind of movie I would normally love, but I have to admit: if it wasn’t for critics going absolutely crazy over this movie (Ebert on his TV show called it the ‘best movie of the year’!!), I would’ve watched it, thought it was OK and then forgotten all about it.
I think there are a number of factors at work here. 1) The ‘redemption’ of Sofia Coppola. She was utterly trashed by critics in ‘Godfather III,’ spends a decade or so licking her wounds and then comes back with a mildly acclaimed movie, ‘The Virgin Suicides.’ Her next movie is sort of autobiographical and very arty, so it’s inexplicably hailed as a masterpiece. I think people are acknowledging Coppola’s struggle over the past few years, rather than the actual merits of the film itself. Best screenplay? I’m sorry but you could literally cut out ANY scene from this movie, including the beginning or the ending, and it would still play exactly the same way. (By the way, anyone else think that single shot of Murray’s golf swing with Fuji in the background served no other purpose to the movie than a tossed bone to its star? Having said that, it WAS a great shot…in more ways than one.) Best director? Huh? The thing was in focus, I suppose, but didn’t this thing consist mainly of people sitting in bars, lying in bed or staring out the window? It was well done, yes, but nothing incredible. I’m really not trying to slam Coppola here, but is there really any way this ‘story’ could’ve been directed badly? Best picture? You’ve gotta be kidding. Factor 2) Bill Murray is somehow ‘due’ this year. He ‘stretched’ in this movie. He was ‘serious’ in this role and showed audiences his talent for ‘drama.’ I guess so. He was good and I’ll be glad to see him win an Oscar, but does anyone else feel as I do that Murray held back TOO MUCH in this movie? He could’ve been much funnier, I think, and it wouldn’t have detracted from the seriousness of the movie because Murray’s humor has ALWAYS seemed borne of some kind of deep desperation. I mean think of it this way: instead of being a washed-up action star (Bill Murray? Action star? Give me a break). Why not have him play a washed-up comedian? Murray could’ve been hysterically funny and THEN the movie could’ve been about this bright young Yale grad trying to break through his comic persona and reach the desperately sad person within! (Ha ha! Sorry to get dramatic here!) Then Murray could’ve played it both ways. Oh well. Anyway, I just get the feeling that Murray going ‘serious’ in a movie has the critics all overly excited for little reason.
I know I said a ‘number of factors’ and then only listed two. I’m sorry. I’m getting tired and I’m really not trying to beat-up on this movie. I’m just trying to figure out why a perfectly OK little movie is being hyped beyond its merits.
I saw it Saturday night. Loved it. Wonderful character piece–definitely a “film” rather than a “movie.” Not far into it, I realized I was getting a Fellini vibe, so I wasn’t surprised that they watched La Dolce Vita together. Sofia deserves an Oscar for the screenplay.
First of congrats to Bill, Scarlett and all for the BAFTA awards. SJ gets 2 nominations for Best Actress in the UK, none by the US Academy…
Secondly, most (if not all) of the people posting saying they didn’t like the film seem to have a typical core issue: they didn’t “get” the film. Now, not “getting” a film is perfectly aok with me. I don’t get Titanic. So what follows is just some of my ramblings as to how some people (may or may not include any posters) do not “get” this particular film.
-
I think many of the film reviews, even though positive, mislead people as to what the movie is really about. They wrote a lot about the odd things the characters found in Tokyo and such. Japan is merely the setting. It has nothing to do with the substance of the film. It is just a backdrop against which the characters stand out, rather than blend in. SC spent quite a bit of time in Japan and had a feel for what a Westerner experiences there. One maxim of writing is “write what you know about.” So that’s what she did. Smart move. But forget that it’s set in Japan. That’s not key.
-
It isn’t a comedy. The back of the DVD package I saw gave it’s category as “Drama.” I repeat. It isn’t a comedy. It’s not bleak and dark like The Hours or Mystic River, but it is still a drama. Some light moments does not a comedy make. This comedy/drama issue has been a major reason the movie has not done well at the box office.
First of all, it’s got Bill Murray and so people expect a comedy. When people think they are going to see a funny guy do a funny film and it’s something else, they aren’t happy. Murray ran into this problem big time with The Razor’s Edge but I think a more apt comparison is Adam Sandler and Punch-Drunk Love. (It is interesting to read reviews of 50 First Dates that mention his recent “bad” films like PDL.)
But, so many people think this is a comedy, that Murray was nominated for (and won) a Golden Globe for best male actor in a comedy. His own acceptance speech pointed out the irony of this which the press completely misunderstood!
-
There are a lot of subtleties that people who aren’t big film fans don’t see. E.g., what’s on the TV at certain times. I recognized La Dolce Vita and got it. If you didn’t, you didn’t. But if you were to criticise the film for including such references, then I’m not going to be happy. (There was a Simpsons not too long ago where they recreated the “baby crawling on the ceiling scene” from Train Spotting using Maggie. Brilliant! If you didn’t catch that, okay. But if you call it stupid, you’ve got problems. Same principle.)
-
I didn’t see a film about two people falling in love and having a romance. They formed a bond. It was mutually understood that it wasn’t to be an actual romance. I have had special relationships with women that others might have assumed were covertly romantic but weren’t in the least. It does happen. And those women would be royally pissed off if they saw the lounge singer running around my hotel room. So would my sisters. Nothing to do with jealousy, but because I’m suppposed to be better than that. There’s love and then there’s Love.
-
I see some posts in various LIT threads that suggest people don’t realize what’s going on with Charlotte. She’s smart, she’s young, she graduated from a great college, she’s married to a guy with a young guy’s dream job, etc. But It Isn’t Working. She is bored, not boring. She tries to entertain herself, and most importantly express herself. She assembles and hangs the paper mobiles in the hotel room. She puts the paper message on the temple tree. Etc. She is at the most critical moment of her young life. “Okay, now what?” She needs someone to give her the courage to break out of it and become someone better. Bob Harris does that. A lot of 20-somethings go thru this crisis. How many of them get thru it in Tokyo with a 50-something guy? (I also love the fact that SC cast a young actress to play someone older rather than vice versa.)
-
She also helps him. But going into all that would triple this already long post. Been there, done that. Need to go there and do it again.
(Reminder for LIT non-fans. All, some or none of the above is relevant to you. Which case it is shouldn’t bother you.)
Acting, cinematography, writing, lighting, directing. You name it. If there were an award for Best Gaffer, this picture would probably be a contender.
In the relationship between the two central characters.
Murray, obviously.
Poetic liscence.
Yes, that is an accurate description of the events of the movie. And?
I can see Gellar in that character. I don’t know why everyone says Diaz: I don’t see that at all.
It’s not the “worst” of Japan, it’s just Japan. There’s no value judgement on any of this stated or implied by the movie. It’s not bad, it’s just foreign. The TV announcer is just as alien an experience to these characters as the Buddhist monks.
Ever see Casablanca?
Depends on what you consider to have meaning.
I think they were going for “humorous” on that one.
Johansson’s afraid of a lack of intimacy, really. She’s young, and she’s just made a decision that’s supposed to last the rest of her life, and she’s not sure if she made the right choice or not. Ultimatly, she’s afraid of ending up like Murray, except she doesn’t know this until she finds him sleeping with the lounge singer. She liked him, initially, because she thought he was an example of it turning out right. Thirty years of marriage, and they’re still happily married. Except he’s not, and he essentially lied to her about it, which is why she was angry with him.
His taste in music isn’t exactly unimpeachable itself. Which I think is significant.
It’s not entirely his choice if he sleeps with Johannson or not. She gets a vote, too. He doesn’t sleep with Johannson because A) he knows she won’t consent to sleep with him, B) they’re both married, and she still has a chance at making her marriage work, even if his is dead in the water, and C) he’s old enough to be her father, for Christ’s sake.
He doesn’t sleep with the prostitute because he can’t relate to the prostitute, just like he can’t relate to anything else in Japan.
Of course no reason is given. It’s a movie, not an encounter session. He acts the way he does because that’s the sort of person he is, and we can understand what sort of person he is by examining his actions. He didn’t want to have sex with a prostitute, he did want to have sex with Scarlett Johansson, but couldn’t, so he sublimates his desire for the unobtainable by sleeping with the next compliant American woman he can find: the lounge singer.
True. So?
I think you’ve got an over-inflated impression of philosophy majors.
Again with the assuming that people who say they like the movie are somehow lying or deluding themselves. Can’t you just accept that people actually like the movie on it’s own merits, even if you don’t agree with those merits?
People always say this like its a meaningful criticism.
Yeah, probably. Still, it was such a beautiful shot, I’m glad they kept it in.
Nice camerawork, too.
Oh, my, yes. A less apt hand behind the camera would have made this movie unwatchable. Directing is more than just framing shots, which is actually cinematography, anyway. It’s, well, more or less everything. Ever see an actor give a horrible performance in one movie and a brilliant performance in another? That’s probably because of a difference in directors. Editing, lighting, all that stuff. They’re each done by a specialist, but it’s ultimatly the director who has to say what’s good and what isn’t, what gets into the movie and what gets cut. A good director can make people sitting at a bar fascinating. A bad one can make an intergalactic space battle the most excruciatingly dull thing you’ve ever seen. Compare Lost in Translation with Attack of the Clone for an example of this principle in action.
I certainly didn’t. What impressed me was that Murray could rein it in like that, that he could be that subtle and still communicate that much. Watch the photoshoot scene again, and look how he switches from depressed (between shots) and suave (on camera), all without moving a muscle in his face. That scene alone should get him a statue.
Sure, he could have been funnier, and it probably wouldn’t have ruined the movie. They could have fought with Yakuza ninjas on motorcycles, and it might not have ruined the movie. But it wouldn’t have been the movie Sofia Coppola wanted to make. “Bill Murray could have been funnier” is only a valid criticism if the movie is trying to be a comedy. It wasn’t.
See, this would have completely ruined the movie for me. If Murray (who I hate, by the way) had played the part with a more outgoing, typical humor, the film would have completely lost the tone it achieved with what I saw to be subtle jabs at humor peeking out from his desperation.
Seeing Bill Murray actually be funny (in a Bill Murray way) in this movie would have made it like any other movie to me.
I will absolutely positively buy that as a theme. And something on which a great film could have been assembled. My only argument is that Bob Harris doesn’t provide it. . .which may be Sofia’s point.
I also thought several times while watching that this was an autobiographical work. And I caught nearly all of the little things. . .films on TV, note on tree, hanging mobiles, etc.
I guess the reason I react so strongly to the film is that there is the possibility of something here. The May-December thing done from a different angle. And I like Scarlett Johanson. But I think she was miscast in this part. And that’s one of the reasons it fails. I’ll leave it at that. I haven’t sold it yet.
Actually, that turns out not to be the case. I just paid $2.95 for this old NY Times article which translates that particular scene (making this the most expensive SDMB post I’ve ever made). It’s very funny:
. . .
Ms. Coppola said she purposely gave the director ‘‘lame directions,’’ adding, ‘‘He wasn’t supposed to be the best director.’’
[/quote]
Thanks for the translation, Varlos. That’s pretty funny.