hroeder:
And she’s pretty obviously smirking as she listens; she realizes how stupid the tape is.
Anyway, you may want to lighten up a bit. It’s fine if the movie doesn’t do anything for you, but your tone implies that you think that people who disagree with you are merely oblivious to what a bad movie it really is – art doesn’t work that way.
Besides, I happened to like it a lot. Since you’re not as smart as I am, if anyone’s wrong about the movie, it’s you.
Thanks for the Translation ! Great Stuff…
It’s also just a wee bit snotty.
Here here. 
Like a movie or don’t like it. There’s no reason to go around and try to make up reasons nobody should like it. ‘The movie is racist because, uh, it shows some Japanese people who don’t speak English well.’ No kidding. How unrealistic and degrading. 
Why does not liking something always equal to not getting it? I got it! I just didn’t like it.
Was Charlotte pregnant? In more than one scene, she had a poochie tummy. Also, while listening to her self-help tape, she had her hand on her belly and again, it made it appear that she was pregnant. Was that part cut out of the storyline? Scarlett Johanssen (sp?) does not have a poochie tummy and there were several shots where I thought she look pregnant.
I finally watched LiT (so I could actually read this thread), and I didn’t really think it was about being in a foreign country. I thought it was about those transitional times in life where Great Changes are Afoot, but you don’t know exactly what’s going on. Everything starts seeming weird, people move and speak strangely, and you feel incredibly isolated, as if you’re in a foreign country. I thought locating it in Tokyo was SC’s way of highlighting the fact that Bob and Charlotte were feeling so isolated – it’s very densely populated, but Bob and Charlotte did not speak the language. The movie, then, was about two people being in the midst of great changes, and forming a bond because they understood each other and could feel that they were being understood. So without any sexual tension (at least, none that I picked up on), they slipped quickly into an intimate friendship, based largely on a common sense of isolation.
It seemed to me that everything related to contrasts between Japan and the US were really just window dressing reinforcing the notion that both of them were, at least temporarily, going through extremely puzzling situations. In some ways the situations were familiar, but they were also completely different. Bob went on a talk show, but it was a very odd experience. There was a bar and a lounge singer, but the songs didn’t make sense. People spoke and acted as if everything was completely normal, except that everything was completely foreign to Bob and Charlotte. SC would know that few in the audience would understand the Japanese director (BTW - thanks, VarlosZ), but I think she wanted to let us feel what Bob was feeling – “Something’s going on, and people really seem to think it’s important, but I just don’t understand …”
So they cling together for awhile, and Charlotte gets upset at him near the end not because she was attracted to him, but because they’d been swirling around in an ethereal world of mutual support and exploration, and the lounge singer represented “real world issues” trying to insinuate themselves back into their lives. IMO, the hug at the end was correct, because they had affection, not attraction, to each other.
Of course, I may be projecting all this. (I also thought Shallow Hal and Joe vs. the Volcano were deep).
SolGrundy I’m sorry if you felt that anything I said was a direct attack on you. It wasn’t. Some of your comments happened to mirror some of the comments which I have heard from people I know. My comments, like many things I talk about, were of a general variety involving more than what is posted on the boards. I tend to post opinion threads based mostly on what I hear outside this place, rather than simply what is posted. There are a lot of people who say that this is the worst movie they have ever seen, and without fail, people bring up the fact that they haven’t seen a truly bad movie. This may be true, or it may not. Just because somebody thinks that this movie was a shitfest doesn’t mean that they don’t appreciate a good movie, in what they believe is a good movie.
As far as my opinion on why the movie was chosen in the Oscar nominations, as I mentioned, it isn’t just the sex of the writer but the name. As a fellow movie hound, are you honestly going to tell me that there are no politics in Oscars? That people who have been nominated, or even won Oscars, did so on ability rather than who they were, or that they were overlooked previously? Again, I was just stating my opinion on the matter.
As far as your feelings about being in Japan, I’m not saying that you couldn’t relate. I’m saying that I couldn’t and didn’t, and that most people I know who say that they can relate, have not been outside of my home state but believe that that is the way they would feel. If you’ve felt the same in a foreign country and relate, more power to you. But I am sick of listening to people who haven’t lived outside their city limits try and explain to me how moving it was. If you’ve been there and appreciate it, I have no complaints. I just don’t want to listen to rednecks who still live with their mom tell me about the lonliness of being in a foreign land and how they relate. Again, talking about stuff outside this message board.
As far as the acting, I’m not saying that Bill did a bad job. I’m simply saying that in my opinion, what he did does not warrant actor of the year. I personally never saw him as anything but Bill Murray. That was my comparison with Depp. The person who makes me see the character, rather than the actor, and make me think of that person by the characters name, rather than his own, deserves best actor. That’s what acting is all about. Again, just my opinion.
I’m sorry you feel that I am an attention whore for voicing my opinion (I’m not exactly a popular poster and don’t care if I am one way or another), and that you took offense for what I said. I didn’t like the movie at all and stand by that. If you like it, I don’t think less of you. I simply voiced my thoughts.
miller if you liked the movie, that is fine. I’m not telling you to like it or not. I simply made notion to the effect that a lot of people like to jump on the bandwagon to appear sophisticated. If you truly enjoyed the movie, I don’t care and don’t hold it against you. But can you honestly tell me that you don’t know people who secretly like certain movies that have been ripped to hell by critics and vise versa, and will slam/defend a movie based upon present company? I do. I respect people who pick a side and stick to it. I have none for closet people. As with SolGrundy, I apologize if you took my opinions personal. That wasn’t my intent.
People… I didn’t like the movie at all. Anything I said is not a slam against any one person. If it was, you’d know it. I simply thought that it was a very boring movie and has no place in the Oscars compared to the wonderful films that it is against. And if you want to argue, we’ll all go blue in the face.
Just saw the DVD: LOVED IT! LOVED IT!
It just felt so real to me. Nothing too forced, no faux drama, nothing like that, just two people coming together in a very close friendship. There was no dramatic plot with a big ending. It was just a wonderful ‘slice of life’ film, where the story revolves around the interaction between the characters. Great moviemaking. I’d love to see it win Best Picture at the Oscars (but it won’t).
Can’t speak for Miller, but I certainly didn’t take anything personally. And I definitely didn’t intend anything I said to be directed at you personally. I just responded to your post because it was convenient as a counter-argument. It echoes a lot of the things I’ve seen and heard about this movie, both online and elsewhere. And, it did so reasonably and coherently, instead of going off into meaningless hyperbole or disjointed and rambling as if you had some kind of disorder. (That was originally intended as a compliment, but it came out backhanded and I don’t know how to rewrite it.) The bit about “trying to get attention” was my failed attempt to smack-talk an earlier poster to this thread.
Threads about stuff like this usually have a predicatable pattern: somebody says X is great. Somebody else says not just that they didn’t like X, but that X is the biggest pile of shit they’ve ever seen. Somebody then replies that you just didn’t get X; the sublime brilliance is there but you’re just too dense to see it. Then there’s the reply that the only reason someone could like X is because he’s an elitist snob who sees things that aren’t there. It usually explodes outward from there, with everyone polarizing towards his own end of the “discussion,” completely missing the main point, which is: X is probably pretty good, but it’s definitely not to everyone’s taste.
It’s almost always wrong to say that if someone doesn’t like something, it’s because they don’t understand it. (I have to say “almost” because I still think that “Family Guy” is irredemably stupid.) There’s been a lot of that around this movie – some say that if you don’t like it, you just didn’t get it; others say that if you do like it, it’s because you think you “get” something that’s just not there. It’s all nonsense, IMO.
There’s always going to be backlash against something that gets as much critical attention as Lost in Translation is getting now, and you’re always going to get people saying it’s The Emperor’s New Clothes, and that people shouldn’t be making such a big fuss about it. Eh, whatever. Unless you work in the film industry and your livelihood is affected by a movie’s getting undue attention, it doesn’t matter. It all comes down to a difference of opinion.
Except for the bit about Coppola’s only getting nominated because of her name and her sex. As for the name, I highly doubt it. Yes, of course, there are a lot of politics involved in Oscar nominations, and in fact the last time I thought the awards were truly based on artistic merit instead of everything else, was when Silence of the Lambs won best picture. But as I pointed out, it’s not as if the name alone is enough to win awards, it’ll at best get your foot in the door. The Virgin Suicides didn’t get a whole lot of attention, and even Francis Ford Coppola himself can’t guarantee that a movie will get nominated. As for her getting nominated just because she’s a woman, that’s really insulting. Look at Penny Marshall, for example: she’s got family connections in the business, and has made several genuinely good movies, and she doesn’t guarantee an Oscar nomination, either.
It all just sounds to me like a weak attempt to undermine Sofia Coppola by suggesting she didn’t get nominated on her own merits. Which really sucks. Like it or hate it, it’s just petty to imply that there’s something more sinister going on.
Therein lies the problem. This film is not about escaping reality, it is about reality. Its uncomfortable, because it is about uncomfortable things - Being alone in an unfamiliar culture, meeting a girl you find attractive and trying to keep up conversation, saying things that you immediately regret saying, being attracted to someone unavailable, etc.
It is the stuff that we deal with on a daily basis that is examined here. No fantasy, no homerun-in-the-bottom-of-the-ninth, no pirates to be found, just the stuff of everyday life.
I was amazed at Bill Murrays performance. His facial expressions spoke far more eloquently than his words did. He completely took me by surprise, and I think he absolutely deserves his Oscar nomination.
I think groo nailed it. I came away thinking that the title “Lost In Translation” indicated people being confused as they searched for meaning and reason in their lives and had very little to do with the language differences.
I thought it was a wonderful movie, and masterful at conveying mood.
You know, those people aren’t in this thread. And when people in this thread say, “I could relate to the sense of being in a foreign country,” and you call it, “Romantic fantasy for people who haven’t left their county, much less country,” it’s only natural to assume you’re responding to them. Because, they’re the ones you’re, you know… talking to.
I think it might have helped if you’d contributed to the debate instead of talking about the opinions of people no one else here knows.
Who gives a shit about those people? Are they in this thread? No? Then why even bring them up? There was, you might have noticed, a bit of a debate going on before you posted. If you walk into the middle of a conversation about X and say, “Everyone who likes X is just saying that so they can look sophisticated,” can you see how that’s going to be insulting to everyone in the thread who’s arguing in favor of X?
Incidentally, don’t you think its possible to change your opinion on a movie or other work of art over time? To see something in it you missed the first time, or recognize derivativeness of something you’d previously enjoyed because you’ve since been exposed to it’s predecessors? Do you think it’s possible to learn about a work of art from someone else, and thereby gain new appreciation for it? If not, why do you bother posting in Cafe Society at all? I’ve got more respect for people who can change their opinion as they learn and grow than I do for people who stick to a position simply because they refust to admit they were wrong.
It’s not what you said, it’s how you said it. Maybe I’m way off base here, but statements like, “People only like it because they want to look sophisticated,” are incredibly arrogant. They are, in fact, exactly the same as saying “You didn’t like the movie because you’re not smart enough to understand it.” Neither statement has any business in reasonable debate.
Put me down as one who was underwhelmed by this flick.
Before I saw it I heard it was about two americans in Tokyo who feel lost and alone in the culture shock and meet eachother and hang out. And that’s what it was. And that’s about all it was.
A few previous posters said it was a film that created a “mood” or that it was like a “moving painting”. I agree. But it could have been done in a 30 minute short film to get it’s point across.
It was done well and hit the mood on the head. But I was stuck in the same mood for 2 hours. It would be like watching a 2 hour movie of “a day in the life of the shire”. Sure, it would be done well, set a mood, look terrific. But it would still be boring if it never went anywhere.
I am posting this without reading any of the other posts for one simple reason…I haven’t seen it yet.
Although it has been out on DVD for the past two weeks, my local video stores seemed to have stocked a grand total of 4 copies.
They have 10,000 copies of Legally Blonde 2, but when it comes to an Oscar nominated film, I guess they figure why waste the money and buy more than a handful. When I mentioned it is never in stock, they cheerfully said, “Yeah…as soon as it is returned, it is rented again. We can’t keep them on the shelf.”
I found LIT almost as offensive as I found it stupid. And you’re all going apeshit over Johanssen? I think you should look at more women… :rolleyes:
Strange how differently people can view movies (I’m not calling it art, no way), isn’t it? Now, I absolutely LOVE Bill Murray - good for him that he’s finally getting the recognition he deserves - but as far as this movie goes, I liked Rushmore better.
I also have a sneaky suspicion Americans are generally going to like this movie more than us non-USers.
Yeah, I wonder why…
I saw it and loved it. I have traveled extensively (except I have only spent about 6 hours in Japan at Tokyo Narita Airport) but my love for the film didn’t come from that.
It is about two people who are totally different in every way except one – that they are lost. They are drawn to each other and bootstrap themselves out of it. I think each one goes home with a renewed purpose, with a realization that they are lost and need to make changes to get found. I think their biggest problems at the beginning of the movie was not realizing that they were lost in life – they were coasting through life on autopilot, moderately content in some areas but truly discontent in others. It took Tokyo to make them realize that life could be much better (and much worse).
Another thing is I think this movie was exactly opposite racist. I think that it was also about two Americans traveling to Tokyo and encountering a society which in many ostentatious ways is our superior. It is ultra-large, ultra-modern, the people are ultra-cool. American shortcomings are immediately obvious from the moment one steps out of a plane in a Tokyo airport. So when the characters made fun of the Japanese, it was reflecting their own shortcomings. This is perfectly demonstrated by the old-hat “l vs. r” joke that was made in the movie. Bob Harris says something along the lines of “They do it for yuks, to keep themselves amused. Because we sure aren’t amusing to them.”
What I really loved about this movie was the sound editing and score. The Virgin Suicidides had a great score by Air. Lost in Translation had great music that fit the scenes perfectly, including the songs by Air, Jesus and Mary Chain, and My Bloody Valentine.
Two small points. I watched the DVD-extra documentary on the movie, and it is startling to watch Bill Murray as Bill Murray transform into Bob Harris. If you just think he is playing himself, you are dead wrong. He was much closer to himself in Groundhog Day, or back on his old days on SNL. That’s him – constantly hamming, constantly making jokes and physical comedy. On camera, it is an absolute transformation; his humor is even completely different. IMHO it was as big a transformation as Johnny Depp’s in Pirates of the Caribbean. And I firmly disagree with the ditzy blonde being Cameron Diaz. Spike Jonze (who was Sophia Coppola’s husband at the time) cast her in Being John Malkovitch, and she certainly demonstrated her acting props in that movie. That ditzy blonde said “Tara Reid” to me time and time again. In fact, I was kind of surprised that it wasn’t Tara Reid playing that role.
Well - that makes two of us, then. 
But seriously… you’re Swedish, right? Don’t you see prettier girls gazillion times a day? I don’t mean the old “Swedish chicks are all beautiful blondes with big tits” thing, I’ve met a lot of Swedish girls and many of them looked much better than the malnourished Johansson.
[ending hijack]
Yeah, I see pretty girls, and ugly girls, and funny and charming and charismatic girls. I thing SJ is adoring. I can’t see what seeing nice women in real life has to do with that.
It’s interesting that you say malnourished, when someone else in this thread said she looked pregnant. I found it charming that she had a little tummy in the movie, rendering a quality more real than the women with hollywooditis we see regularly on tv and the big screen.
Her new fame and her ad deal with Calvin Klein is likely to end that though. I predict she’ll go through the same trajectory as many other normal bodied girls do in Hollywood.
[/EJ]
I’m just not seeing the racism angle here. Could someone who found it racist please explain their reasons? So far I’ve seen the “r vs. l” joke thing… but as edwino commented, it didn’t feel like the joke was on the fact that the Japanese have a hard time pronouncing the letter r so much as what Bill Murray said. As for the rest of it, I just don’t see any racism. Then again, I’m not Japanese (I’m Korean, actually, and trust me, in Korea they have just as hard of a time pronouncing r’s), so maybe it was something else that went unnoticed by me since it doesn’t affect me?
What amazes me most about the film, apart from its numerous onscreen assets, is the name Sofia Coppola on it.
This is the same person who wrote by far the worst third of “New York Stories”?
The same person who assured that “Godfather III” would never be regarded as worthy of the other two films?
…who did unremarkable costume work elsewhere?
I mean yes, “The Virgin Suicides” was a nice surprise, but given her previous track record, I assumed it was just a fluke.
“Lost in Translation” was magical.
