February 11, 2004
Let me put it quite bluntly
I'm getting tied down in the details of my arguments about Lost in Translation, so I'm just going to put it all out:
I had high expectations for LiT. Perhaps this is too much. But this movie didn't just miss my expectations, it completely flat-out derailed the expectation train.
The film has been described as:
"You'll think. You'll laugh. You'll be marvelously entertained. And you'll be touched." (I did not think, I did not laugh. In fact, I'm not sure many people did after the first few minutes)
"Tart and sweet, unmistakably funny and exceptionally well observed." (Where are the observations? What is so funny?)
"One of the year's best films." (right)
Now these statements are pretty bold. Chris said that I'm attempting to make "grand sweeps" of the film, but that is simply because the world seems convinced this is one of the best films of the year.
As I've grown older, I've grown quite accustomed to seeing people trying to pass off obscurity and enigma as art. I've seen photographers who don't quite have direction try to pass off something that seems cool as "art." This is what I feel Coppola is doing.
I feel she had a nice idea for a short film, but somehow lost her train of thought when making the movie and got too tied up trying to make it "cool."
Quite simply put, I feel this movie missed its mark and tries to make up for it entirely by deflecting attention onto its cinematography. This is why I keep bringing up random scenes; some people say this "builds the mood." I think Coppola is trying to distract viewers by showing them pretty scenes of Japan.
The reason why I continue to focus on the plotlines (besides the obvious lack of character development), because if I can prove that there is no plot, then people will have to accede that the cinematography and Bill Murray saved the movie, and nothing else. It is a horrible failed attempt at a great movie.
And to deflect any comments about the plot, what occured in LiT is not a plot. Chris says that's my opinion, but this movie is doing a grave injustice to real cinema if it tries to pass itself off as having a real plot. What happens in LiT are interactions between characters, NOT a cohesive PLOT.
Yush commented that this was an internal movie with a lot of internal turmoil, which explains the presence of a tangible plot. I'm aware of this; Bill Murray does a good job in showing the conflict of his career and family and finding yourself as an older person. Coppola could of developed this theme a lot more, but instead chose to just scratch as his surface. What could of been a great character realization/development movie is cheapened by the Scarlett's story. But what exactly *is* Scarlett Johannsen's struggle? She's a lonely wife stuff in a new culture. Is her struggle with finding herself? Is it finding companionship because her loving husband is away all the times? These questions are never answered. These are both very important premises for the movie. If Coppola's purpose in this movie is to not know what to say, she does it perfectly.
This movie fails at character development, character realizations, an interesting tangible plotline (background, conflict, resolution), and a message. It doesn't even provoke thought.
The only attacks I've seen at these arguments are that "well the lack of a plotline is your opinion." That might be true, but it still begs the bigger question...
"Why is this a good movie?"
I'm getting tied down in the details of my arguments about Lost in Translation, so I'm just going to put it all out:
I had high expectations for LiT. Perhaps this is too much. But this movie didn't just miss my expectations, it completely flat-out derailed the expectation train.
The film has been described as:
"You'll think. You'll laugh. You'll be marvelously entertained. And you'll be touched." (I did not think, I did not laugh. In fact, I'm not sure many people did after the first few minutes)
"Tart and sweet, unmistakably funny and exceptionally well observed." (Where are the observations? What is so funny?)
"One of the year's best films." (right)
Now these statements are pretty bold. Chris said that I'm attempting to make "grand sweeps" of the film, but that is simply because the world seems convinced this is one of the best films of the year.
As I've grown older, I've grown quite accustomed to seeing people trying to pass off obscurity and enigma as art. I've seen photographers who don't quite have direction try to pass off something that seems cool as "art." This is what I feel Coppola is doing.
I feel she had a nice idea for a short film, but somehow lost her train of thought when making the movie and got too tied up trying to make it "cool."
Quite simply put, I feel this movie missed its mark and tries to make up for it entirely by deflecting attention onto its cinematography. This is why I keep bringing up random scenes; some people say this "builds the mood." I think Coppola is trying to distract viewers by showing them pretty scenes of Japan.
The reason why I continue to focus on the plotlines (besides the obvious lack of character development), because if I can prove that there is no plot, then people will have to accede that the cinematography and Bill Murray saved the movie, and nothing else. It is a horrible failed attempt at a great movie.
And to deflect any comments about the plot, what occured in LiT is not a plot. Chris says that's my opinion, but this movie is doing a grave injustice to real cinema if it tries to pass itself off as having a real plot. What happens in LiT are interactions between characters, NOT a cohesive PLOT.
Yush commented that this was an internal movie with a lot of internal turmoil, which explains the presence of a tangible plot. I'm aware of this; Bill Murray does a good job in showing the conflict of his career and family and finding yourself as an older person. Coppola could of developed this theme a lot more, but instead chose to just scratch as his surface. What could of been a great character realization/development movie is cheapened by the Scarlett's story. But what exactly *is* Scarlett Johannsen's struggle? She's a lonely wife stuff in a new culture. Is her struggle with finding herself? Is it finding companionship because her loving husband is away all the times? These questions are never answered. These are both very important premises for the movie. If Coppola's purpose in this movie is to not know what to say, she does it perfectly.
This movie fails at character development, character realizations, an interesting tangible plotline (background, conflict, resolution), and a message. It doesn't even provoke thought.
The only attacks I've seen at these arguments are that "well the lack of a plotline is your opinion." That might be true, but it still begs the bigger question...
"Why is this a good movie?"
Comment with Facebook
Want to comment with Tabulas?. Please login.
sung
MacDaddyTatsu (guest)
Thank you. Good night.
yuhoo7
Second, you know damn well Chris bought this movie, and you keep throwing it in his face. It’s simple psychology, no one wants to hear about something that they made a decision to buy/own, is the most awful thing in the world when they don’t personally think it is. And just the way you’re bashing his movie, pisses me off. Now you may think so, and that’s fine, but no need to continuously repeat to everyone that it was the worst movie ever, and make a bigger deal out of it than it already is just to incite something. Once again, simple respect.
This is by no means just a mere plot summary, I’m going to get to the core, to the meaning of the movie, call it BS if you want, since that’s what I think everything you’ve written about the movie is as well.
Now, to me, this is a good movie mainly due to what the story is about in relation to the title "lost in translation", and how it relates to my, and everyone else in the world. Now, you don't have to agree, and I know you probably won't, so it doesn’t matter. Damn it this is going to take a long time... two people’s struggle, Bill Murray and Scarlet. Murray's character is a super star in US, but at the core he's just an ordinary human being like the rest of us. He talks about his $2 million in earning for the ad he’s doing in Japan as if it were nothing. He’s sick of the super star life, it’s become mundane. Even glamour and attention seems trivial to him, he’s seen it all, he gets too much attention. Scarlet on the other hand, doesn’t get enough attention. She sacrificed her own career and interests to follow her husband to Japan, just so she could spend even less time with him and sit around alone all day. She has so much ambition yet she can’t fulfill them, and wonders what she can do. Murray has fulfilled his dreams, is successful, and now at midlife, doesn’t know what he wants to do.
There’s your basic conflict for the two characters, they’re opposite… yet similar at the same time. That is why they are able to have such a connection, they literally complete each other; each one has what the other doesn’t, and both are lonely. Murray has the attention, success, and identity. Scarlet has youth, drive, and ambition. It was no mere coincidence they just happen to match up so well, Coppola has carefully given these two the characteristics needed so that they could relate to each other and develop a bond. Once again, young, driven ambition meets success and established identity. It’s what they’ve been searching for all their lives. Murray’s midlife crisis makes him want to relive the golden days and experience drive again, Scarlet’s insecurity about her own future makes her want to accomplish something instead of sit around all day. There is your basic plot. (plot: 3 : the plan or main story of a literary work) this is also where it gets somewhat abstract.
All the scenes of Murray and Scarlet literally getting “lost in translation” represented the distractions and uncertainties we face while “growing up”. Remember the scene you said that was a wasted 5 minute scene in the hospital with that Japanese person singing? It made no sense, Murray didn’t understand what that woman (I’m not sure if that was a woman or man, I was sitting too far away) was singing, yet he just sort of went with the flow. When life gives you a batch of uncertainties or change, do you sit there? Run away? Or go with the flow? Best answer is probably to go with the flow, and see how things pan out. Think about it, what do you do when you don’t speak a language, you eventually have to learn it. Although the movie is set about a few weeks long, the characters couldn’t learn Japanese, the solution/message is still there. When you get lost in translation, you learn to speak a new language.
Murray and Scarlet are both “forced”(I use that word loosely) to go to Japan for whatever reason. They are placed into an unknown territory. They don’t speak the language, don’t know the custom, and more importantly, they both don’t know where their life is taking them. They are lost, physically and emotionally. Yes, I know that is a common theme, it is a part of everyone’s lives, but Coppola is looking at the bigger picture in life. Like I said earlier, watching this movie is like reading a novel, if you keep wanting to look for an awesome plot, you’re just going to miss the main message.
Basically, what Murray was searching for during his mid-life crisis manifested itself as Scarlet, and what scarlet was searching for during her time of uncertainty manifested itself as Murray. They find what they were looking for, but were both scared, timid, to go forward with their feelings. When I said internal conflict, there’s a lot of subconscious emotions going on. Scarlet knows that she wants to pursue what Murray represents, as does Murray. But it is so hard to take that first step to get to where you want to be. When I plan to write, or set a goal for myself, it’s that first moment of the actual “doing” that is the hardest part. That is why the kiss came so late, that’s why there was so much building up, the “doing” part for most of us is really hard to do. I know you are a “doer” and may not see it that way, but from all my experiences with people, “doing”, taking that first step, is the toughest. But once the first step is taken, everything changes.
After they kissed, Bill Murray whispers something in Scarlett’s ears. What he said I couldn’t hear, and I don’t know if it was even meant to be heard. Let’s say Murray had told her he’d come back for her. The story is a happy ending, she finds what she had been searching for, as does he. Let’s say Murray told her that he would cherish this moment for the rest of his life, and left it at that. Both of them still found what they were searching for, and lost what they were looking for. You lose something, you find something. What’s lost isn’t forever, if she tries hard, eventually she’ll find what she’s looking for.
“You'll think. You'll laugh. You'll be marvelously entertained. And you'll be touched."
As you can see, this movie has made me think. The humor on the other hand is very subtle, as is in most Bill Murray movies. That is also the reason he was the perfect actor for the job. You don’t need a Jim Carey or Chris Tucker for this role. Why? Because the character is of an aging actor/star, who is lost in a foreign place, he’s lost his place, and thus searching aimlessly. Wow, I think this relates to everyone’s lives. And guess what, sometimes, when we least expect it, we find that something we’d be looking for even if we don’t know we had been looking for it. Serendipity. Murray finds Scarlet, Scarlet finds Murray. I found the movie humorous, but that’s just because I really enjoy subtle humor. Although I don’t laugh out loud, subtle humor gives me a good feeling, and makes me smile. Perhaps those older critics laughed because the older you get, the more subtle your humor gets. I was touched at the end, especially watching the build-up before the kiss. Where Murray had Scarlet bring down his coat. The audience can feel the sexual tension between them, yet they don’t kiss. The other blond girl tries to hit on Murray, but he brushes her off, that was a subtle display of his affection towards Scarlet. The hot blonde girl wasn’t what he was looking for, it was Scarlet, and what she represented.
The golf scene was not useless waste of 3 minutes. Where can a man play golf where the backdrop is a volcano. It’s not something you can find anywhere. You can go to any golf course in America, and I bet you wont be able to find a huge volcano in the backdrop. But, wherever life takes you, you still do the things you usually do. Even if it’s something as simple as golf. Coppola tried to make the movie as realistic as possible despite having to implement so many abstract themes. Life goes on, people play golf, when a Japanese person sees a foreigner in their country, they’ll probably talk to them and laugh at them. My brother’s neighbor, who’s white and speaks no Chinese, went back to Taiwan with my brother last winter break, and guess what? He was laughed at due to his lack of language and the fact that he was just completely out of place. He didn’t want to eat the food, couldn’t speak the language, and it was funny to my family. Life is mundane, we spend a third of our day sleeping, then 2- 3 hours eating, we are really active doing something only 8 hours a day. And even in those 8 hours, it’s not always action packed, perhaps one of those eight hours something really exciting and meaningful happens, if not less than that. The movie was also trying to capture that as much as it could. If anything, this movie was trying to capture too many things, and perhaps lost you in the process.
I can go on and write several more pages, but it’s time to sleep. if you have any questions or concerns that you want me to address, give me some time, and I will eventually address them.
Once again, simple respect, no matter what, Coppola put a lot of work into this movie. You can bash a 5 dollar Bruce Lei movie as much as you want. But “Lost in Translation” is not “the piece of shit” that you make it out to be. You give it absolutely no credit, it doesn’t get 4 oscar nominations if it is totally undeserving of it.
roy
I've read over your post and I'm going to sleep on it.
;D
roy
First off, I'm not sure where you're getting the impression that I'm disrespecting people. I haven't acted disrespectful towards anyone personally yet. If there's anything in my entries/comments that you find personally offensive, then you need to say so.
Yes, I am driving this point home, but in my mind, I'm countering all the praises that hvae been sung into my head at least 10 times by various people. It's a natural kneejerk reaction about something I feel strongly.
I'm sorry that the "scrolling" thing pissed you off. I didn't know consideration of others was something I had to remember when writing in my own personal space. It kinda irks me when people tell me that something I write or do in my journal pisses people off.
Now I'm not sure what exactly about the way I'm handling this is "pissing you off." I was happy to drop the subject until people kept dropping comments after last night onto my journal. These entries are reactions to comments in my journals and IM conversations. The only mention I made of this was "Oh, Chris commented!" until the topic was brought up in our room.
These have so far been civil debates; they are simply people expressing opinions one way or another. If you don't like the fact that I'm drawing out a debate in my journal, again I'm sorry. But this is my journal and I'll discuss subjects as they arise.
I'm pretty offended that you think I've been disrespecting people; I don't feel I've disrespected anyone so far. But when I wrote strongly about a topic, and I get these vague comments, it irks me. I have to know what exactly they're trying to say.
That is ultimately why this topic has been drawn out to three posts; every consecutive post I've made becomes less vague about why I dislike the movie; I've listed specific points of discussion that I'm hoping people will attack and defend.
You say that this topic is an opinionated topic. Yes, that is perfectly true. Where you're wrong is in saying that "nothing will change my mind." The point of the debate is *not* to change minds.
It is to CLEARLY state your opinion and then MAKE ME SEE THAT POINT. I may not agree with it, you may not agree with my point, but in the end we've opened each other's viewpoints to _why_.
So far no one has provided any clear arguments for the _why_ people like it. In fact, I feel that people are inciting me by trying to drive the debate elsewhere.
Again, if you think I've been disrespecting people, I'm sorry. I mean no disrepect at all.
yuhoo7
And I apologize as well, I let my anger get the best of me once again, something I must work on. It didn't bother me as much the first post you put up about how much you hate the movie, but then you put up another, then another, then another on xanga. It was just like a slap in the face everytime, with you saying to me "This is what I think, and what you think has no basis, prove me wrong if you can" That just gets to me a little bit. So I apologize for the tone of my opinion. Being somewhat of a dabbler in writing, I just have tremendous respect for those who do write, and try to give them any benefit of doubt in their works, trying to find the intricacies and hidden messages. And when i can't, i feel like I didn't do a good job as an audience. I'd type more, but it's time for class.
Make Love, Not War, let's watch the Bruce Lei movies after poker tonight.
nomo_crispdawg
Personally, I wasn't offended by your remarks b/c I own the movie, but I am offended for the fact that you call this a bad film. This coming from a person who doesn't even know Kurosawa. You are no Pauline Kael or Rogert Ebert, who both understand what cinema is. But you don't claim to be a critic, you say? Roy, when you make comments like these realize you're carrying large baggage. When you say a film is bad you are claiming that you know cinema. You are a casual movie goer at best. The people mentioned above are professional critics who have seen thousands of movies and get paid to do it. Perhaps you should quit programming and do the same if you think you KNOW cinema. Also, the academy sure as hell didn't think this was a bad movie. (The academy is comprised of hundreds of professionals or retired professionals who have worked within the industry).
I just want to know what school of thought you are ascribing to to think that a good film must have such-and-such qualities. Robert McKee perhaps? A man who has no credentials attached to his name. Tell me, what's the last good Robert McKee film
nomo_crispdawg
Tell me, what's the last good Robert McKee film you've seen?
I'm sorry this movie has not conformed to your standards of a "good film," but to pigeonhole good films to certain characteristics would be the downfall of cinema. It would simply put boundaries on what a movie could be.
You repeatedly say there is no plot. Yush has apparently done a great job of dissecting it. I shall do the same with my second, more careful viewing.
Also, there is a difference between personal opinion and making a comment like, "this is not a good movie." I absolutely did not like Master and Commander, but I sure as hell could tell that was a good movie.
Roy, to get to the bottom of this (quite frankly I'm getting tired of these insignificant tirades) your words are not the word of GOD. You get so entrenched in your opinions it's as if GOD was speaking through your very lips. When you make sweeping comments like you have, you DO offend people whether you realize it or not. You leave no room for other's opinions. It's almost as if you're talking condescendingly upon them. You may not realize this (again b/c you're so entrenched) but you are. This explains that night in Korea when Joon went off on you. I've heard the story. Three people here seem to agree about the ways you make comments. Or is it just a coincidence?
I apologize if my comments were harsh, but it's only to help you realize that what you say is not the end all be all, which is how you're comments often come off. That is all, thanks.