Lost In Translation- A Discussion
 

So, i was reading the thread about how a lot of us are unable to watch a movie with the same eye that we used to before we knew how they did everything (http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...threadid=21848).

While reading it, Lost In Translation came into mind. I think i'm the only person i've talked to that thought the film was "just okay" rather than "totally amazing". I recently tried to have a discussion with a fellow filmmaker about Lost in Translation. I asked him why he liked it and all he could do was say, "it was just so good".

Maybe i missed something or some idea in the film that is making it seem like a high-budget student film. I'm beginning to think some of these people are not looking at film and analyzing it, but rather taking the popular position and sticking with it.

I do like Sophia Coppola, don't get me wrong. I thought the Virgin Suicides was awesome, but i don't think LiT was quite up to par. I don't think it met the standard she set for herself with the Virgin Suicides. Anyway, i'd like some thoughts on the film focusing mostly on the plot (or lack of).

I tend to agree with you. The fact that it won best screenplay at the academy awards is somewhat of a farce. To me, Bill Murray is incomparable, but this movie is a short film dragged out to feature length and without Bill Murray's improv ability would have been boring as hell. It's beautifully shot and has some clever moments, but it's not a terrifically great film, as everyone seems to think. As a friend, who is not a filmmaker, said "It's like 'OK, we get the picture already.'"



mg

So, how long have you been talking to yourself, Gino? ;)

Whew. Thanks to Matthew and Gino. I thought it was just me.

Did you notice how all the scenes seemed truncated? Especially the Bill Murray scenes. The tv commercial shoot. The scene at the tv station with the wierd host. Bill and Scarlett go out to dinner. Bill and Scarlett see Tokyo. I got the feeling an editor said, "Very nice. Now, what is this scene about?" Cut, cut, cut.

I could say something about the May-December thing, but I'll pass. The great Spanish director, Carlos Saura, does a lot with this theme, and I think he's silly when he does it also; but I find his stories more interesting. LiT just bored me after awhile.

Shhh. Don't let the other side know we're here.

Wayne

I felt that the character development in the film was excellent. I knew everything about them. But, you know... i don't want to know everything about them. I don't care that they went to Tokyo and felt out of place and then had a good time once they met. This has probably happened many times before and will probably happen again. I didn't find anything super special about the shots, the lighting was kinda cool, but such is the lighting in Tokyo and I thought some parts were worth a chuckle or two.

I am also very glad there wasn't a romance between ol' bill and what's-her-face (i'm really not good with names). That would have been a disaster.

Maybe i'm wrong... i mean, i hope i am, but i think the only reason Sophia got the recognition she did is because she is the daughter of the Godfather himself. Francis Ford is a genius, but genius-ism is not hereditary. I went to a film fest last year (Resfest `03) and i saw a short film by another Coppola and it was probably the absolute worst film i saw that night.

Rick- you'd be surprised.....................

I really liked how it was shot and more importantly how it felt.
It felt a lot more real then most type of relations on screen, but
that might have something to do with my own experiences.

Wayne: I actually liked the off-cutting. A lot of things where a
bit "off" with the movie and that felt new and refreshing to me.

Anyways, I need to watch it again a couple of times before I can
make up mind about how good it is (or not).

I think LiT is a very good film. Not great a great film, but very good. I am not sure, however, that I would have given it an Oscar for best screenplay.

In this film are two lost people -- unsure of what they are doing or why and going through the motions largely for the sake of others -- surrounded by people (husbands who run off, wives who FedEx carpet samples, fans) who really have no idea that they are lost. They recognize they are in the same situation and find some degree of comfort in each other's company for a time. It is very much a romance, even if only more a father-daughter thing. If it weren't for the romance there'd be no movie.

The story is set in a very interesting way against Toyko, and, more broadly, against Japanese culture. Wandering around Toyko the girl observes the extremes of the culture from contemp. arcades to traditional flower arranging looking for the meaning of it all and, by doing so, meaning in her own life. She's not finding it (as we see early in the film when she goes to see the monks and then phones home to say she "felt nothing" and is upset). It's only when she meets Bill that she begins to find some calm.

I'd say it's more subtle than slow. Because I lived in Hawaii (very influenced by asian cultures, esp. Japanese) for a little while I found the the film evocative. I also thought it captures a certain mood of the often disconnected, short-sighted, isolated nature of modern life (travel, certainly) very well. The "truncated" pace works to reenforce this mood.

What I liked best was the struggle to tell the story in moving pictures rather than dialogue. This might be what people of the academy saw in it besides "Coppola." This is the first film I have seen in awhile that does not knock you over the head with a lot of talking. I also like the use of Toyko as a character.

Well put Peter! Couldn't (and haven't <g>) said it better myself.
I think it very honoustly portrays the feeling of lonelyness, being
disconnected and everybody is buzzing around you. I'm not sure
a lot of people actually really know that feeling.

For my part, I'll paste in a comment I made about the film in a similar discussion on another forum where some folks wanted to know why anyone would think it's such a great film.

"
- I LOVED the cinematography and general texture of the film
- I adored the atmosphere of the film - the actual settings and sounds
- I understood and identified with the feeling of giddily wandering without intention with a new friend, as the characters did in this film; the innocence of a new friendship with no emotional baggage
- I very much enjoyed the choice of music
- I found the dialog very real and human, and both entertaining and charming all at once

I could go on, but for me, specifically, these things put it at a very high appreciation level for me, and if I was to be stranded on a desert island with nothing but a DVD player and one movie made in the past year, I would personally pick LIT over pretty much any other film, because of the way it makes me feel.
"

Peter and Imran got it right. On other websites I get the feeling some didn't like it because there weren't any explosions and car chases.

I wasn't watching the cinematography that much and don't remember now but I find it interesting that the cinematograhers I know all diss the shooting and mark it off to the low budget.

Lost in Translation is the most inspiring film I've seen in a long, long time. To me, it reminded me of a lot of the 60s and 70s films that focused on realism and the inner story.

I loved the zen-like calmness of it, and...as my sister put it, the fact that it felt like taking a ride in people's heads. The use of available lighting made it beautiful...I'm so put off by slick unnatural lighting that you see ALL the time nowadays. Sure, some films/scenes warrant it, but not all scenes.

But from the perspective of an American who's lived in Asia for almost a decade, and who's traveled quite a bit and practically lived in hotels for periods...this movie hits dead on target with that type of lifestyle. It's true that people who share the same language, or culture, or country and who stay in the same hotel for awhile eventually gravitate toward one another and experience little short-term but close friendships. Since your time together is short...you cut through all the small talk crap and get down to having real discussions much more quickly than you do at home.

And FWIW, the scene where they're lying on the bed and he's telling her about his family--filmmaking doesn't get any better than that.

An interesting thing about the whole cinematography/low budget thing. One of my favorite films is a low budget indie by the name of Next Stop Wonderland, directed by Brad Anderson. One of my favorite things about that film was the texture and cinematography. Often if not always handheld, it had a really good feel and style to it that to me seemed very intimate with the characters, while at the same time retaining good production values. The film stock itself had a grain to it that matched the production very well.

Not too long after, Brand Anderson put out Happy Accidents. I enjoyed the film, wacky though it was. But I found it very annoying with this film with an obviously higher budget and better quality 35mm film stock paired with better lighting, occasionally did the handheld thing. It just didn't work with the clean image of that film, in my opinion. The two things seemed very much at odds with each other.

My point is basically that while it's often easy for very technical and literate cinematographers and/or DPs to mark off something like Lost in Translation as just a result of low-budget production values, perhaps people may also want to consider that Sofia Coppola made the choices she did because it best represented her story. After all, with a name like Coppola, she could have gone for bigger budget had she really, really wanted it - the avenues are there for her. But that wasn't the point of the texture of this film. Therefore, an active cinematic choice.

The reason often indie films seem more real and true to human form is because they are often shot in a way that allows more chance for reality to 'happen' - something more difficult to accomplish in a huge soundstage somewhere. So big budget or no budget - it's still a legitimate 'choice' to shoot indie style.

I guess Imran pretty much got it right. The film just struck the right chords with him, and he responded. It has been said that "film should take you to places you have never been and introduce you to people you have never met," and certainly I would agree that LiT lived up to those criteria.

Interestingly, Lost in Translation won even more awards at the Independent Spirit Awards pre-Oscar night. I believe it was chosen "best film" of the year.

And certainly any film that has people talking can't be that bad. Ever get involved in any spirited discussions of "Gigli?"

Wayne

I think my problem is that i have spent so much time not making a movie because i'm looking for an interesting story. And then here comes a film with extremely subtle comedy and romance and it wins an oscar for best screenplay. I guess what gets to me is that anybody could have done what Sophia did. I didn't think there was anything unique about the film that distinguished it from anything else.

The dialogue was indeed very human, which is good. However, i think a lot of movies do that. The cinematography was good, but nothing out of the ordinary. Maybe the screenplay had some cool sidenotes or something that the academy liked. I don't know... everything just seemed way too subtle and plain.
Telling the story visually worked relatively well, but then something like The Triplets of Belleville comes out where you know exactly how the person is just by looking and them, not considering the fact that it is an animated film. Its the first "silent" film i have seen since the coming of sound. That was sheer genius.

Maybe in order to have liked it, you'd have to be able to relate in some way or another? I don't know... i'm trying to like it and appreciate it. I'm trying to find out just why people like Imran like it to the point where if they could only see one film for the rest of their life, that would be it. Perhaps i just have to accept the fact that i didn't like it and then crawl back into my lowly hole.

Peter- i don't understand exactly what you mean when you say, "i liked the use of Tokyo as a character." How so?

I am a huge fan of indie and low budget films as long as they are good. I don't need explosions or sex to sell me on a movie. What i need is an interesting, well developed story and plot and i felt LiT lacked both.

I also didn't like 21 Grams... it just kept pissing me off. I liked how the stories came together and how it was edited, but the plot itself... bah. But anyway, that's a whole other thread. ;)

Maybe we're going through a small film industry revolution and i'm not seeing it. The move back to simplicity. I think what i'm looking for is something greater than what i've seen, not something more basic. But maybe we're moving back in time, but making more modern approaches... it makes sense in my head. i don't know how i'm doing relaying the ideas. I just keep thinking about the simplicity in the film and the fact that Triplets of Belleville, though animated, had only like 3 or 4 lines throughout the entire film. We'll see what happens next year.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matthew Groff : I tend to agree with you. The fact that it won best screenplay at the academy awards is somewhat of a farce. To me, Bill Murray is incomparable, but this movie is a short film dragged out to feature length and without Bill Murray's improv ability would have been boring as hell. It's beautifully shot and has some clever moments, but it's not a terrifically great film, as everyone seems to think. As a friend, who is not a filmmaker, said "It's like 'OK, we get the picture already.'"
mg -->>>

If the film hadn't been feature length you wouldn't have had the same pacing. The pacing was one of the major features of the composition.

What I mean by Toyko being a charcter in the film is that the young woman's interactions with the city -- by wandering around and observing -- are critical to her relaization of her own isolation. Hope that's not too abstract.

There are so many sequences that are glimpes of the city and city life that one has the sense that the city is also observing her too.

> This is the first film I have seen in awhile that does not knock
> you over the head with a lot of talking. I also like the use of
> Toyko as a character.

That's it. You usually see that kind of thing a lot in european features, but LiT has an 'american' feel to it while exploring a lot into dialogue-less territory. Then again I did get somewhat annoyed with the ridiculous portrayal of the japanese characters, especially the ad film director and the translatin thing... that part felt out of place in the context af a film which is in general very subtle. Of course, ridiculizing other cultures might actually be what makes the movie feel american. I too have not totally made up my mind about this film, but I sure did enjoy seeing it.

Ignacio,

The portrayal of the director wasn't that over the top really... and the "bizarre" TV personality shown? He's real... and he's really like that. The karaoke scene...been there and done that many, many times myself...etc. etc.

Living here... I didn't see anything too offensive in it. Almost all that was shown I could see or experience here without having to look too far.

Sophia Coppola lived here awhile and has close Japanese friends. I think her intent was to show a part of Japan that westerners don't see that much, that is very much real, and almost passé to the Japanese themselves, but outlandishly bizarre to outsiders. And she did this to further isolate the foreigners here (to bang you over the head with the "fish out of water" theme) and to also show how different the Japanese culture is to western cultures...not in a derogatory way...but just as a fact...for a glimpse into rarely seen Japan, to contrast the serenity and beauty with the bizarre thus showing the onion has many layers, and to relay some of her own past experiences.

"I also didn't like 21 Grams... it just kept pissing me off. I liked how the stories came together and how it was edited, but the plot itself... bah. But anyway, that's a whole other thread. ;)"

Wow. I don't really know to to respond to that.

IMO, Lost in Translation, 21 Grams, and Return of the King were the best movies of this year. Each had a very specific tone and presented a highly compelling vision. Two were plot-driven, and one character driven, but those are small differences. All of them resonated emotionally, and that's the whole point.

I was *very* skeptical of Lost in Translation until a few days ago, when I actually saw it. It's deliberately paced, but never boring. I loved how some of the shots lingered for a few moments after more conventional films would cut away.

Do I feel it's the best movie of the year? Definitely not. While a subtle and warm character study with some great non-verbal acting and beautiful cinematography, it's not the overwhelming achievement of 21 Grams or Return of the King. It doesn't redefine any paradigm, and it's not supposed to. The sheer reality of the interaction really made the movie great.

BTW, I have been to Japan extensively and I'm half Japanese. Any argument that the director "deliberately exaggerated/demonized" the Japanese is ridiculous, since it was a very factual interpretation. The TV shows, the society, etc. were all portrayed realistically.

Is this Evan Kubota... like... Evan Kubota Evan Kubota? The Evan Kubots i know?

Anyway, i'll keep watching LiT and maybe i'll grow to appreciate it. I find myself doing this with music. I'll listen to it once or twice and hate it, but then i'll listen to it again and again and again and sudden;y i can't get enough and i love it.

"The TV shows...were all portrayed realistically." Esh, too many bright colors for me...

Rost in Twanslation, my parody pronunciation of LIT. Was it a guy flick or a chick flick? Either way, it seemed ponderous. Failing to capture Japan in a non-stereotypical way, it is a far cry from any film that Takashi Miike has done. He knows the real Japan.

Where do we even slot the movie? It has none of the love angles of Accidental Tourist. As an abstract "in-search-of-something" film, it barely compares to Wings of Desire. The humor of If It's Tuesday, It Must be Belgium is missing. LIT has little to no depth. If you took Kieslowski's worst film (there weren't any), it would squash Sofia Coppola's film in just about every respect. Maybe films aren't meant to be compared, but there are several thousand movies that I would put miles ahead of LIT. If LIT were her first movie, and Virgin Suicides were the second, I'd be impressed. But she's stepping backwards, like Kevin Smith. Instead of a bright new star on the director's horizon, I see a director who seems to have shot her load. In the meantime, the only thing I have to look forward to in American cinema is the next film by David Lynch, the Polish brothers, or perhaps Todd Haynes.

So you can only review the film by trying to slot it in with several other much different movies? You really think it's at all interesting to compare Lost in Translation with Takashi Miike? Come on.

> The portrayal of the director wasn't that over the top really

Well, yes... actually I have done some work in the advert business and it's usually like that, in any language :D

What are your "credentials" for this? Two other people who have
lived in Japan said it pretty much captured reality. So it sounds
a bit "off" that you are now claiming it is not.

<<<-- Originally posted by Rob Lohman : What are your "credentials" for this? Two other people who have
lived in Japan said it pretty much captured reality. So it sounds
a bit "off" that you are now claiming it is not. -->>>

Are they asian, and do they speak the language? This is a tourista film: Japanese love video games and cameras. Yes, but that's not all they like. This movie could have been written by a tourist on a 3-day junket. Why waste film repeating the obvious? Just because some people like this film too much, does it mean they can't take criticism? Name me a film made in Japan by the Japanese which just skims the surface like this one. Have you guys even seen Ringu? Are you aware of Woman in the Dunes?

As for not liking a film because it does not compare favorably with other films, tough luck. Movies do not exist in a vacuum. I hope some of you saw the Academy awards. Because Bill Murray's joking remarks about the indirection by Sofia Coppola had a certain ring of truth to it. She also caricatures American stay-at-home middle-aged wives, so the Japanese are not the only ones being jabbed and stereotyped in her film.

Capturing reality is what documentaries are for. I like fiction and the way it transforms reality, such as the film, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Gong Show, anyone?

All you've done is reel off a list of Japanese films and say that Lost in Translation is not like them. For your information, I've seen Woman in the Dunes and Ringu. I can't speak for Rob. And I've been seeing lots of Japanese films in the past few years. Do you want to compare lists? That sort of analysis has no utility at all. This is why I laughed when you tried to compare it to Takashi Miike movies. If you take Takashi Miike's hugely varied filmography, you would get a billion different versions of Japan and some of it extremely outre. Is Japan the land of Yakuza or girls who torture their dates, for example? That is why I questioned your comparison. It doesn't mean I don't appreciate a story of these two foreigners and their impression as outsiders being in Japan. I don't know why you would think this is a statement on the entirety Japan when it is obviously a story of these two people and their isolation and reactions. When you travel to another country there is something laughable, funny and wonderful in the things you witness. At the root of all stereotypes there is a bit of truth. Yes, it is used for comedy material here but it isn't in the least mean-spirited. The Johansen character explores Japan. She goes to the places the tourists go. That is what tourists do. Even the Bill Murray character comes away from Japan appreciating what it has given him. Do you know the Japanese have cowboy bars? Is that mean-spirited of them to make fun of westerners? Or when they take photos with Mounties in Canada? Maybe they find it funny or charming.

You wrote:
//As for not liking a film because it does not compare favorably with other films, tough luck. Movies do not exist in a vacuum.//

All you did was say "oh it's not like Kieslowski, it's not like Miike", etc. That is a worthless statement just as it is. Kieslowski is not like Herzog. Miike is not like Godard. They make different films altogether. It's a useless comparison unless you can make it substantive. If you want to be a film snob back it up.

Keith, I'm not a film snob, but I have watched 8-10 thousand films. And yes, I own many of these (on vhs, laserdisc, dvd, and d-theater). If you do not feel it is "appropriate" to compare films, then you're at odds with the public, and most critics. Film is not as unique as poetry. It is far more universal, with an audience in the billions. Movies are far more referential than music, novels, etc. Movies do not exist without prior reference. You would knock out half of Woody Allen's movies if he could not allude to other films.

If you want to argue that LiT is a great film, then you should back it up. Because "great" means in comparison to other films, not that a film appealed to one's sense or sensibility. To some people, Jackass: The Movie is the greatest comedy in the past 10 years. They could use the same arguments as you do about LiT. My point is that someone who thinks LiT is not that great a film does not need to write a thesis about why this is true (in his view). It doesn't matter what I think. It's those who think it is one of the 1000 greatest films ever made who have to prove their point. Because, these people have to push off another time-tested film to get their current favorite into this elite group.

//Keith, I'm not a film snob, but I have watched 8-10 thousand films. //

Right. You just had to mention you've watched 8-10 thousand films.

//If you do not feel it is "appropriate" to compare films, then you're at odds with the public, and most critics. //

I didn't say that and if you honestly read that from what I wrote previously, you should re-read. I am questioning your manner of comparing unlike directors and their works with "Lost in Translation". You threw out Kieslowski without mentioning which one of his films you thought was useful for comparison. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you are just saying: "these are masterpieces and this is not" as if it was just a linear value comparison. Instead, why don't you compare like works. And when you mentioned other Japanese works all you are doing is saying: "well these other films are about Japan and they are all better directors". Well, in what way? How can you honestly compare a film by Miike to something like this? Miike has indeed made better films but which one of his films has been like this one? Sofia Coppola hasn't made any films about Yakuza's cutting out their tongues either.

People in this thread have talked about its pacing, its direction and its focus on the two characters as reasons why they thought it was good. So they've already backed it up with something. Why don't you criticize it based upon something instead of just throwing out some pantheon.

I don't think it's a masterpiece for all time, either. But in this year, I think it was a good choice among those nominated.

I don't know to whom you directed this question, but I certainly can.
The issue that I raised was not one of criticism or anything else
related to the movie. The issue was that your standpoint on
Japan seems to differ from people who I know live there (I don't
know if they speak the language, you should ask them that).

The only "credit" you have given thus far is that you've seen
(probably) a lot of japanese movies or movies about Japan. Have
you ever been to the country? Have you lived there? I haven't
done neither so I'm not commenting at all on whether this is a
good representation (re-read my posts if you want). I'm only
saying that your view is different from other people (who again
live or have lived there) and was thus only seeking for your input
on the matter.Besides it not being true (not everybody can write movies), I'm
assuming you mean the scenes about Tokyo. So? That's exactly
the feeling the movie tries to give you. Two people are stranded
there, so it is only logical they should do the "tourist" things.
I would. And since I haven't been to the country I don't know for
sure, but wasn't a pretty large part shown: video games,
karaoke, huge markets, temples etc.?

Marc,

I won't add fuel to the flame related to your arguments about the quality of the film. Although I disagree completely, it is, afterall, your opinion--which you're entitled to.

But as for your comments about being insulting toward the Japanese. You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

Keith hit the nail on the head... is it insulting for a Japanese tourist to want to have their photo taken standing next to a mountie? No? How about a photo taken by some big biker-looking guy? I've seen it done. You're confusing curiosity/difference/interest with something else entirely. Don't let your need to pick a fight cloud reality.

Also, later in the movie the Johansen character invites the Bill Murray character on a night out with her Japanese friends. This can hardly called racist or stereotypical. It's a bunch of people having fun in trendy nightclubs. I see those people all the time in Vancouver, both Japanese and non-Japanese in the same circles. Even if you look at the surface of the earlier depictions from the POV of the Bill Murray character and think they are just making fun of the Japanese, this is more than balanced when the two of them go out and experience the fun of Japan. And later in the film, Murray tells his wife that he wants to live more Japanese and she tells him, if he likes Japan so much maybe he should stay there!

I'm not sure I agree with Marc, but having read a number of reviews expressing similar sentiments, I thought I'd rush to his aid to point out that he's not alone in his evaluation of the breadth of the film's perspective.

This review by Yoko Akashi of Japan Today begins:
Myself, I was mildly amused by the film, but hardly thought it to be best picture/actor/director/screenplay material. Certainly it possessed neither novelty nor profluence. Worst of its sins was its title, wholly incongruous to the story, which dealt with two characters who had no problem whatever relating to each other, and treated its alien setting as a backdrop and nothing more. I wonder if an identical movie made sans name talent would have gotten the same traction.

That's not necessarily a fair query - the name talent is part of what made the film what it is. In fact Sofia wrote it from the very start with Bill Murray in mind (and of course was very relieved when he said yes). She has repeatedly called him her muse, even in one of the award shows - either the Oscars or the Spirit awards. So one could say Bill Murray was critical to the film, name or no name.

And Johansen (sp?) is only hot right now as a result of this and one or two other films, so her name isn't really a factor. As far as Sofia... well, her Virgin Suicides didn't get this much notoriety, though it did garner some critical acclaim. So while her name I'm sure paves the way to a green light for her, I don't think it gets her anywhere with box office results or award shows.

As far as the above quote from the review - well, it's a bit of a stretch to say that Sofia was showing Japan through Johansen's ass. I have a hard time with extremist views with any angle.

I knew this topic could spark a wildfire, but keep in mind, i'm wanting this to be a discussion and not an "i'm right and you're wrong" kind of a thing. Everybody is entitled to his or her opinion.

I am enjoying the issues being brought up and the interesting comparasons that are being made.

I have to say something about the "woman's ass" quote. Keep in mind, it could have been a lot worse... it could have been a man's ass. Women's bodies tend to express ideas of mystery, beauty, and seduction. I'm sure Sophia wasn't trying to make the comparason between an ass crack and Tokyo.

Ah yes... good ol' American values (something tells me that Yoko, the author of the review, is an American of Japanese heritage or has lived there). The human body is a dirty thing that needs to be covered, lovemaking is naughty, sexuality is for "trashy" people... but hey, let's blow up everything in the movie. In fact, let's not just blow things up... let's put the explosives in their mouths, and then blow them up in slow motion! Coooool, dude!

I've often thought that if the U.S. mentality had its way, we'd all be neutered to look like Barbie and Ken dolls (you know, with the "blank" bodies under the clothing)...except that they'd feminize Ken and masculinize Barbie to the point that you couldn't tell them apart. They'd be Pat and Pat dolls. Of course, they'd be blended in all ways and would avoid any sort of regional accent or distinguishing characteristics.

Personally, I'll take a shot of a woman's ass over a head exploding any day. Why cave to the thinking that you should NEVER show a woman's ass because some insecure, easily-offended types PERCEIVE any shot of a female body, or male body, as offensive?

Anyway, I don't think that was Coppola's intent either and intent guides us to the truth more accurately than perception.

But in that same line of thinking, I'm sure that some Japanese will be offended by parts of the film... and I have to wonder whether they'll be offended because they truly find the scenes offensive, or because any outsider's glimpse of them, especially view's of the more bizarre aspects of society, makes them feel uncomfortable? What if a Japanese filmmaker made a film about a Japanese woman in New York who sees some of the "bizarre" clubs there? Does that faithfully represent what all the U.S. is about? No, of course not. Should Americans be offended. No...why should they? It doesn't reflect what the same Japanese woman would experience in, say, Little Rock, Arkansas... but people from Arkansas would probably feel as much like "fish out of water" in New York as they would Japan. Besides, it can only truly be taken as offensive if it's amplified and/or has mean-intent (for instance, Mickey Rooney's depiction of the Japanese neighbor in "Breakfast at Tiffany's"-- now THAT is offensive).

I really don't think Lost in Translation has anything truly worth being considered offensive. What's always surprised me is how many films, especially U.S. films DO have derogatory comments and imagery related to the Japanese (you'd be surprised how many)... and these are films that are not only widely-acclaimed in the States... but here in Japan as well.

Wow, John... hitting a little below the belt there. I understand that stereotypical "American mentality" is not something to be proud of, but i think you're pushing it a little too far with those statements. I, personally, find nothing more beautiful than the female body (taking into consideration the fact that she is healthy and not obese). I find nothing more satisfying to touch than a woman's body. I would hate to have myself and my Barbie looking the same. It would just be... weird. And i, too, would rather enjoy a nice shot of a woman's ass over the visual horror of war. There are many more pleasantries to be said about a woman's ass than there are about warfare and i think you know more than a few American's feel this way.

The problem with sex is that its something that can be good or bad and parents wont know how their children will handle it until they are older whereas war and gore are "bad" no matter how you look at it. Its easier to explain than the innumerable definitions of sex and lust and beauty.

"Why cave to the thinking that you should NEVER show a woman's ass because some insecure, easily-offended types PERCEIVE any shot of a female body, or male body, as offensive?"

Not to defend the reviewer--I don't see it her way, I was just pointing out that Marc wasn't the only one who felt Japan was deprecated by the film--but I'm fairly sure the above by John wasn't her intent.

First shots in films, like beginnings to great novels--"Call me Ishmael," "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"--can be microcosmic of the film and its themes.

So what was Coppola saying by choosing the thinly scrimmed derriere of a woman in repose for the opening of her film?

Ah...that's the kind of question that needs to be explored at a cozy pub over a few drinks with friends that love to talk about movies. Hop on a plane, Robert.

It depends on how abstract you want to be. There are three possible meanings:

1) The literal view, "hmm.. some chick's ass. i hope we get to meet her face later in the film".
2) The poet's view, "Tokyo is like an ass... hmm... interesting comparason."
3) The abstract view, "A woman's body is full of mystery and seduction. Such is Tokyo."
4) The everything-happens-for-a-reason view, "This ass makes me uncomfortable. AH! I felt uncomfortable just like the characters must have felt!"

I'm sure there are a billion more, but these are the most general i can come up with.

/me calls Sophia to ask true answer.