Monday, September 26, 2005

Movie Review: Lost in Translation

*Caution: Review contains spoilers*

I'm not surprised many people have expressed frustration at being lost during "Lost in Translation." I am surprised that it was nominated for so many awards including the Oscar for Best Picture, Best Actor, and Best Director, while it only took home the Oscar for Best Original Screenplay. Here are a few keys to this mystery.

This is the first major film by Francis Ford Coppola's daughter Sophia Coppola. Sure she directed "The Virgin Suicides" and "Lick the Star" but, as I said, this was her first major film. So, just like when someone spends $200 million dollars on his film you give him the Oscar so that you can get the same type of a budget, when one of the most powerful men in Hollywood's daughter puts out something that appears to be an artistic film, you at least nominate her work. Too bad it was up against Peter Jackson's "The Lord of the Rings, The Return of the King." Also known as the "Here are the Oscars you deserved before that we didn't give you because we knew you were making a trilogy" movie. I'd also like to add that Bill Murray has never won an Oscar and he's getting old. He'll continue to be nominated regardless of the quality of work he puts on the screen.

But why else didn't it win more Oscars? Here's a thought, written and directed by Sophia. This movie could have been twice as good as it was. Again, a rookie mistake to not trust another director with your baby.

Here's another reason: It was a movie. "Lost in Translation" tried very hard to be a film. To be an artistic statement regarding deep intellectual things. It failed.

This film captured a few things quite nicely: The isolation felt (and occasionally desired) when in a foreign culture. There is a very distinct feeling when you are in an atmosphere where you cannot read every advertisement and cannot understand every conversation being held around you. This is most noticed when you return to a culture that you understand. Though it seemed this film wanted to convey these emotions it missed an opportunity by not returning home with either character.

This film also expressed the susceptibility that marriages have to affairs when they are not one's first priority. I think that Ms. Coppola's aim was to have it appear as though these two people happened upon their illicit relationship. However, as I watched the film, it became clear to me that they were both looking for what they found and had they not found it with each other, they would have found it with someone else.

And so we come to the failures of this film. There were a few things that had to be verbalized because they were not communicated through the action of the movie. An example is that both of the main characters were suffering from travel insomnia. I didn't catch on to this until it was said.

Ms. Coppola relied on the supposed intellectual drama to provide the plot motion for this picture. It was insufficient. The lack of subplots and the predictable storyline leads one to ask, "Why was this movie made?" What is the point of this film? International affairs are acceptable? Most people feel helpless in foreign cities?

And finally, the largest and most disappointing failure of this film is found in the final scene. Bill Murray is headed to the airport to leave. He sees Scarlet Johanson's character on the street, stops the cab and runs to her. They gaze at each other meaningfully and he whispers something unintelligible in her hear. Some people have called this moment genius. I call it a cop-out. Why would this moment be private when every other second of their interaction was shared with the audience? Because Ms. Coppola doesn't know what he said. My guess is that he originally said something that test audiences hated and so instead of correcting her error by either altering what is said or removing the scene entirely, she simply removes his lines. They still communicate but what is said is hidden forever. Cop-out!

So, for those of you who have made it this far, and have seen the film, I have a question: If you remove the final scene, did they have an affair?

"Lost in Translation" is one of those sad movies that thinks it's a film. Movies that know they are movies ("A Knight's Tale" "Blue Streak"), though terrible, are less pitiful than movies that put on the guise of being a film. It is a story not worth telling and a movie not worth watching.

And that's just my opinion.

8 comments:

tchittom said...

There were at least two good things about this movie. (1) It wasn't a typical movie. Sure, it was like a visit to French existentialism a la High School, but it wasn't yet another blockbuster-hoping guy film, or yellow gel romantic chick flick. (2) The photography was often gorgeous, re: her tour of a Japanese garden & coming up on the Shinto temple. On the other hand, what was with the larger-than-life butt-shot during the opening credits, as well as the one-night-stand with the lounge singer? Both were cheap attempts at, what, transcendence-through-eros? The DVD extra of Bill Murray and others praising Ms. Coppola's achievement in this thoroughly predictable story is hard to watch. That's my 2 cents.

Anonymous said...

I heard that his whispered lines at the end were improvised and that no-one except Bill and Scarlett know what was said.

I don't much care for the butt shot either. I have a friend who thinks it is the most beautiful opening shot ever.

cade said...

wow.

while i would never go as far as calling the film "brilliant," i have to say that i disagree with most everything that's been said here.

to me, it's a beautiful study in what connects us as humans. as emotional, broken and fragile creatures. it's a man who has lost his life. and a girl who is trapped in a life she was unprepared for.

it's about isolation and trying to find any way at all to curb that horrible feeling. it's about finding life in someone else, even if it is "illicit" (which i have an incredibly hard time accepting it was. at what point did the 'affair' actually take place? (betweem them...not counting the lounge singer.))

it's a film that takes away rationale and cuts right to what we obsess about and suffer through when the physical and emotional self is exhausted and beaten down to it's base. and the city of tokyo (for an american) is the perfect metaphor for that confusing struggle.

and in all this, to me, it is successful.

i understand why people don't get it. or like it. it's not an easy film to watch. it's more of a character study that moves at an incredibly slow pace. but the distance the characters travel on their journey, though physically minute, is enourmous in it's subtlety.

ms. coppola did a fine job directing her junior effort. and as i recall, other directors such as speilberg, welles, scorcese and lucas have all directed their own screenplays. and that seemed to work out okay for them.

as for the ending, i could not love the fact that i don't know what he said more. it doesn't matter. call it a "cop-out" whatever. the point is that for these two characters, this experience has set them in the right direction to reclaim their lives. what ever justification or advice or endearment he utters in that street seals it. we don't need to know. we don't need to see them at home. we just need to realize that they are going to be alright.

cade said...

oh yeah, and bill murray should have won an oscar for "rushmore" if not for "lost."

i'll bet he finally gets it for his great, but still less deserving performance in "broken flowers." if you haven't seen it, don't. i feel it would garner a review similar to this one.

Marc said...

Cade:
So your answer to my "did they have an affair?" would be a "no."

In regard to people directing what they've written from that list I submit the following: First, there is a difference between a story credit and a screenplay credit. You can direct your own story if someone else wrote it. And now these movies: Star Wars Episode I, II, and III, and AI. Orson is exempt due to his sheer genius and you'll notice that Scorcese was already an established director before he directed that which he also wrote. I'm not saying that this is an absolute or an across the board truth, it is simply a rookie mistake that most of us make (myself included) in this day of independant films.

I find it interesting that you believe these two people will be "alright." I saw no evidence from their relationship that would lead me to believe that either marriage will inprove, or that either will more fully commit themselves to their current partner. Rather the opposite, they've both encountered someone new and interesting who is different from the person they are currently with. I believe it more likely that these types of encouters would continue (see: the lounge singer) rather than disipate. The next time they have an arguement with their spouse, will they be hoping to work it out? Or longing for Tokyo? (There's the sequel's title: "Longing for Tokyo.")

Cade, don't get me wrong, I like artsy character driven films. I like films that make me think. I don't feel that this movie made me think. It was predictable and somewhat saddening. I wanted more for the characters than they gave themselves.

I look forward to seeing "Broken Flowers"!

Marc said...

I agree with the Rushmore Oscar!
Not so much with the Lost nod. I hope he gets one. He deserves it.

cade said...

call me an optimist. (wow, that's something i'm not accustomed to.) i guess we just saw different things in the film to warrant differing projections. and that's fine.

from a personal standpoint, i relate to the characters on many levels (sans the spouses and kids of course.) and when you're that far-gone and that exhausted, both emotionally and physically, it is an amzing thing to find someone else to share it with. with each other's help, you grow out of it. these are the friendships (not necessarily, romantic relationships) that can truly define a life.

as for artsy films that make you think. i tend to believe that artsy films that allow to to just observe in lew of trying to figure out, are just as powerful and beautiful. there are paintings that cause me to think and other paintings that are simply breath-taking to look at. such is art.

thanks for your point of view, man. i hope you do enjoy "broken flowers." i know you probably will more than the angry old ladies i saw it with.

tchittom said...

Cade's comment is a good one. I have to admit, I *am* a fan of this movie in that it did what I wanted it to do, namely bring up the kind of existentialist dread which Cade mentions. The relationship between Bill and Scarlett incarnate, what is this, a reincarnated Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir meet each other at the Tokyo at the End of the Universe? (http://www.newyorker.com/critics/books/articles/050926crbo_books) Wait a minute, I know what this movie is! It is a chick flick for romantic philosophers! Aha! Yep, understood in that vein - I loved it. Someone pass me a tissue.