Lost in Translation movie... wow

Cafe Society
101

Okay, I’m just tacking my little post to this thread, since I only saw the movie last night. It’s only been released here since a couple of weeks. I’ve been looking forward to seeing it since reading Cervaise’s earlier thread.

I can’t add much to the discussion, I agree with the wonderful interpretations put forward to, notably, Miller and SolGrundy, and others as well. I’m grateful for the translation posted by VardosZ. Some of the criticism I can understand, even though I don’t agree with it.

To my mind the movie indeed captured very well the feeling of slight alienation and boredom that you have as traveller in a foreign country: while you visit sights and meet people, you still do not really get in touch with anyone or anything. The relationship between Johansson and Murray was a beautiful counterpoint to that: two strangers who tentatively find a way to relate to each other.

To my mind the slight ambivalence in their relation, which was never fully resolved, was a major point in favor of the movie. It would have been much easier to make it a pure romantic relation or a strict friendship. By deliberately showing the varying and mixed emotions of the characters, the movie rang true in a way that is rare.

I’m glad I saw it, although I can understand why other people won’t like it.

102

As an ex-pat, I absolutely loved and totally related to this movie. I saw it with my French husband and poked him so many times that he finally told me that ‘he understood me and my frustrations’ (and to stop poking him).

For the record, nothing was subtitled during Bill Murray’s final comment to Scarlett so I guess it is up to the viewer to decide.

Whenever I see another American (or English speaking person) here I tend to instantly mesh with him/her regardless of politics, backgrounds, etc. I think it shows how much some of us need the comforts of our culture and to be surrounded by people who ‘get it’.

103

I liked the movie, but it suffered from high expectations, I’m afraid. I don’t know what I was expecting, but all the top ten lists and awarc nominations and glowing praise probably made the movie feel better than “meh” but worse than “wow”.

BTW, I don’t think this is close to Bil Murray’s best work, to me he ios playing a stylized version of himself. I still think his best performance was in Rushmore

104

This movie was very effective. The characters were bored throughout and so was I.

105

I saw the movie recently. Loved it.

To me, the movie was a very true to life portrait (and I think the only one I have ever seen in a movie) of a platonic love affair.

I think those who have had such an experience themselves will recognize it instantly - the tension, the sweetness, the wondering whether it is futile or wonderful …

106

I adore LiT much in the same way I adore the Wong Kar Wai film In the Mood for Love. Both are dramas highly focused on the interaction of the two main characters, in a relationship that is not consummated. I get highly absorbed into the mood of both films, and I can definitely see how a viewer who isn’t absorbed in the same way could become quickly bored. They require a lot of patience, and multiple viewings. The first viewing of LiT or ItMfL introduces you the characters; the second, third, fourth… allow you to discover subtle expressions and small details. Sophia Coppola cites ItMfL as one of her major influences in creating LiT, so it’s not surprising that I enjoy both.

107

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

My wife and I finally got around to watching this movie, both of us looking forward to this highly reviewed movie. What a load of tripe.

Let’s see… Peter Travers, of Rolling Stone said, “Flat out hilarious!” When exactly was this? When I plunked down money to see this thing? I’ve laughed harder at fart jokes. Thelma Adams, from Us Weekly said, “Getting lost never felt so good!”. Uhhhhh, yeah. Is Thelma talking about getting lost in a bottle of whiskey, or this movie.

Murray = “Best Actor Nominee”? Please. And what writing did Coppola do to get any attention for “Best Original Screenplay”? There was no guts to the script at all. Completely lacking in any interesting dialog… unless you find the “r” - “l” jokes funny. I guess it could be considered original if a 15 year old wrote it for english class. But I think you have to seriously ask yourself if this movie would have ever seen the light of day unless someone named Francis Ford Coppola hadn’t coughed up the bucks to produce it. (And I’m sure that didn’t hurt the reviews.) The only thing missing was an appearance by Nick Cage.

I’ve been overseas alone… so has my wife. Neither one of us could make a connection at all. We waited and waited for something to happen… we both wondered what we were missing. It turns out, we didn’t miss anything. The movie inhaled. And the crap-ppola ending of Murray spotting Johansson from a taxi in Tokyo was pathetic. I’m glad I couldn’t hear the whispered line. It probably sucked like most of the “so-called” dialog anyway.

Before the defenders of this film tell me what I’ve missed (Miller, SolGrundy, et. al.) don’t bother. I’ve read your well thought out reasoning why this movie was, in your eyes, great. I just can’t see it. No pastels for me. No sweeping emotions. It’s kind of like one of those 3-D pictures. And I have 20/20 vision!

SFP - Nearing the end of my SDMB posting life…

108

Gah, I love that movie as well as LiT, but I’d never made the connection between the two. In terms of tone and pacing, they are very similar. Now I want to watch them side-by-side…

109

I am surprised no one has linked to Ebert’s recent Answer Man Column that addresses the issue of “Duh, I don’t get it?” and LIT.

I agree 100% with everything in his reply. (And I’m not that big of an Ebert fan.) Look at the critics ratings, the awards, etc. It really is a great movie, no question about it. But it also goes right over a lot of people’s heads. Okay with that, but then to put down such a provably great movie really does reflect badly on the speaker. It’s no different from saying that Michelangelo’s “David” is bad because you can see his wee-wee. So you don’t get great art, okay, but maybe you should think twice before complaining about great art. You might have a valid point, but there’s a good chance you’re just making yourself look dumb to others. E.g.,…

Morty Seinfeld on Monet: “I say the guy was painting without his glasses.”

110

Y’know, I was just thinking that LiT seemed a lot like Chungking Express–one is kinda the flipside of the other, yet I think they both have a similar sensibility.

111

How incredibly smug to think “a lot” people who dislike it didn’t get it. Lonely in a strange place; suffering from bad marriages but still too bound by conventions to do anything; feeling helpless because they’re not doing the things they’d rather do with their lives -if they even could figure out what that “rather” is… I got it. It didn’t impress me; I didn’t find it remotely profound, it’s too shallow for that. It’s more akin to a picture postcard than an enduring statue. :rolleyes:

112

I do generally like Ebert, but I found that column to be really smug and condescending. It seems like it’s impossible to discuss this movie without someone saying one of the following: “You only like it because you’re trying to look smart,” or “You didn’t get it because you’re not smart enough.” Both comments are equally inappropriate, IMO. Liking LiT isn’t a sign of superior intellect or more refined taste.

113

I just saw LIT two days ago, and I liked it a hell of a lot. There have been a lot of insightful comments here, and I don’t have much to add at the moment, except this.

Why do some of you seem so insulted just because someone disagrees with your opinion of a film?

I loved this film, I didn’t really know what to expect, and in fact I began watching it three nights ago, but was put off by the pacing of the first scene and watched School of Rock instead. The second time I watched it, I already had an idea of the pacing of the film, and I wasn’t expecting a typical comedy.

There are lot’s of reasons I loved this film, it was beautifully filmed and acted (disagree if you will, but as an actor and director I hope I know what I’m talking about) , and the themes resonated with me in a way no other film has for a while.

I think I’m about to answer my own question. Personally as an actor I’m upset that some of you don’t see the same quality of craftsmanship that I do in this film, If you don’t like it, that doesn’t upset me, but it does upset me that you don’t see the quality of the work.

It is different to standard Hollywood fare, and maybe paced and scripted very differently to films you might have seen before, and you compare it to a typical Hollywood film, or a typical Bill Murray film, and use that as an example of a good film then LIT won’t compare favourably.

I suppose what I’m trying to say is that your taste is influenced by the other films you have seen and enjoy, and are trained to watch (for example I might not like westerns, and not be able to tell the difference between a good western and a bad one, because I haven’t watched enough) and that perhaps that’s why some people don’t like it.

It doesn’t mean that anyone is stupid, or less sophisticated, it just means but maybe we are all approaching the film from different perspectives, and using different measuring sticks.

I’m hope I’ve managed to express that reasonably well.

114

I agree with you and Ebert 100%. What’s “smug and condescending” is saying a movie is “bad” or a “piece of crap” just because it didn’t suit the viewer’s tastes. A movie that’s so critically acclaimed as LiT is in no way a POS. It’s the height of stupidity to claim it is. A more appropriate thing to say (for a smart person) is something along the lines of “it wasn’t for me, I didn’t like it” and not go around claiming it’s a bad movie as if it were fact.

Also, people who say “it’s the worst movie I ever saw” are either morons who wouldn’t know a good movie if it bit them on the ass, or such highly elite cinema freaks that the only movies they watch are far higher quality and far more critically acclaimed, in which case they may have a point.

I agree, but saying it’s a “bad movie/piece of shit/horrible film/whatever stupid thing I can think of to say to show that I’m an idiot” is definitely a sign of lower intellect and less refined taste.

115

Miller, that wasn’t directed to you, and I haven’t read back through the thread to see if it applied to anyone here. That’s how I feel about people in general. I’m gearing up because I fully expect to hear the same sort of stupidity (man that sucks, duh) about Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, another small film that could get a lot of awards attention and therefore be exposed to the Joe and Jane Six Pack mentality.

116

Well, I loved the movie (see my comments above), but I must say I would not dream of telling people that didn’t that they are uncultured and have no taste. They are quite as entitled to their opinion as I am even if it differs.

To my mind, quite aside from issues of the technical excellence of the directing and acting (which I thought very high), people will either like or dislike this movie if they have sympathy for the type of relationship portrayed or not.

117

A good friend of mine who I regard as an excellent judge of cinema saw LiT the premiere weekend, before any of the “raving” reviews came out. He immediately predicted that every critic in the world would gush and fawn and masturbate all over the film as if it could solve global poverty. I think he’s right.

The film perfectly translated the sense of loneliness and isolation and insomnia. Great, just what we need. If I told you I could perfectly translate the sense of intense pain and nausea, would you allow me to kick you squarely in the groin?

Eq, do you recognize the hypocricy in your statment? You cannot say, “respect my right to have a different opinion” and then bash other people’s opinions. “Smug and condescending” is smacking the label of “height of stupidity” on an opinion.

“Lost in Translation is a good movie” is not a fact. It is not “proveable” as you say. The word “good” is, by definition, a subjective term and subject to judgment and opinion.

And for the record, I “appreciate” high quality film. I thought “Adaptation” was an absolutely fantastic movie. “American Beauty” was wonderful. My cinematic preferences are broad and colored - but LiT sucked ass.

118

Saw it last night. Every time they got to a situation where, in most movies, sex would have ensued, Mrs. Rimshot and I went into agonies – “don’t do it!” We were talking to Coppola, not the characters. We love the fact that the relationship remained platonic, albeit with some regrets on the part of the characters.

Favorite, illuminating scenes:

  1. When Bob put Charley to bed after their night with her friends (I assumed from college). She snuggles down and goes to sleep, and his face registers amused resignation. He knew that, if they were going to do it, this would be the opportunity. And when she adopted the role of tucked-in daughter, he seemed to have a quiet laugh at himself and accepted his role.

  2. Bob in the tub, talking to his wife. “I want to get healthy, blah blah, I want to eat like the Japanese do.” And his wife replies “well, Bob, why don’t you stay there, then.” Her tone was perfect. Not angry or spiteful, very reasonable, as if speaking to a child. Reminding him (not for the first time) that she’s back there holding down the fort, and she doesn’t begrudge him his freedom, but she knows him too well to play his self-pitying game. Bob loves his wife and knows he needs her. They both know she’ll forgive him a lot, and they both know she’ll need to forgive him a lot.

  3. In the restaurant, after Bob has slept with the lounge singer. Charlotte can’t figure out what to order, so he does, like an impatient dad with a teenaged daughter in tow. Then he reaches out and plucks the menu from her clenched fingers; she remains in tableau, just like a recalcitrant and resentful teen. And we’re left to wonder if she’s disappointed at his show of typical male lechery with the singer, or if she’s jealous that he didn’t come to her.

  4. The last scene - perfect. Ambiguous, just like a lot of relationships. We provide our own meaning, which allows us to decide what kind of movie we’ve just watched. I still don’t know what he said to her, but it doesn’t matter. “They’ll always have Paris”.

119

A very good post, BTW. A relief from the pointless “it’s great/it sucks” debate!

I agree with all of your points except I have a different interpretation of #3.

In my opinion, it is clear that she is jealous. In a sense she has to right to be jealous, because their relationship is not sexual (and of course they are both married) - and they both know that she has no right to be jealous; but knowing doesn’t help. They also both know that by this time, if he hasn’t come to her, he is not going to - in fact, he can’t; not without destroying the type of relationship they have built. Nor I think would she have welcomed such an advance, and in offering and being rejected, the relationship would probably be destroyed.

This is one of the crisis that every platonic love affair has to face eventually - namely, that the persons involved are not necessarially going to abstain from having sexual relationships, and it is going to hurt when they do. The other person has to either come to terms with that, or succumb to jealosy and end it.

In this case, they come to terms with it.

120

As has been said, when it comes to any art form, quality is subjective, not objective. I like LiT, so for me, it’s a good movie. Munch didn’t like it. For him, it’s a bad movie. Since we’re all reasonably intelligent, educated adults, neither of us need to waste everyone’s time saying, “In my opinion, this movie was bad.” That everything anyone in this thread says is merely opinion goes without saying.

I don’t much care how many other people say its a good movie or a bad movie. That doesn’t at all impact how much I enjoy a movie. There is, I am certain, at least one movie out there that was critically panned and died in the box office that you love. Everyone has at least one. By your own argument, you have no right saying it’s a good movie, because if the mass of public and critical opinion says it was bad, it must be bad, right? Of course not. Quality is subjective. Saying LiT is a good movie is no more “provable” than saying it was a bad movie. They’re both completely valid, completely equal opinions.

This is manifestly untrue, for reasons outlined above, but is also completely inappropriate. It’s just a movie. There’s absolutely no reason in the world to insult someone for not liking a movie. Aside from basic forum rules (this is Cafe Society, not the Pit), all it does is derail any chance at debating the merits of the film. I like a good flamewar as much as the next guy, but I also like to have interesting conversations about the arts. This requires two things: a reasonable level of politeness, and someone who can argue the opposite point of view. Shouting down or insulting anyone who disagrees with you defeats both of these requisites, and turns any thread about movies/books/TV/whatever into a congratulatory circle jerk. We’d all be sitting in here like that Chris Farley character: “Remember that part, where they’re in the karaoke bar, and Bill Murray starts singing, and he’s all sad and stuff? That was cool!” Such conversations can be fun, I suppose, but they’re not particularly enriching.

Not at all. It’s a sign of a strong opinion. To me, a sign of low intellect and lack of refinement is the inability to take disagreement. I’ve got a lot more respect for posters who hated Lost in Translation but can limit their invective to the movie, than I have for those who love the movie, and have to insult anyone who dares to have a different opinion.

So what? How does someone elses negative reaction to a movie affect your enjoyment of it? Is it that important that your opinion be “right”?