WeAreAwake.org

I flew out to LA this past summer to visit a friend; I absoutley loved it there. The weather is wonderful, much better than in Baltimore, and there are actually things to do. I wish it wasn't so far away though.

i dunno if i could deal with that infamous LA smog though...i like it here in the bay area, even if everything is so expensive (theres no exageration: everyone talks about the price of housing here, but its more than that. EVERYTHING is soo expensive)

Sorry I've been unable to post pictures, been separated from my laptop for a while. However, travelling to england next week so hopefully I can get it fixed and send them. I can't really add much to the topic of LA as I only spent a few months there as a child, except the stark contrast between the local bus in uk and sliding across the seats in the back of a mercedes whenever it went round a corner. Either way it didn't last, and I think thats one thing I think people need to consider. LIT is a fleeting experience for the characters. The whole film exists for only a week, and after that Bob returns to his marriage and so does Charlotte. Anyone looking for some finite answer should beware, as it is possible to visit this place in reality, and ultimately one only experiences that same feeling of isolation. Perhaps to visit this place in reality for some would mean the destruction of a fantasy that has inspired them so much. This christmas I planned to visit the bay where the Beach was filmed, another place on my list, but had to visit the uk at the last minute. Apparantly the place was flattened by the tsunami a few days ago, so maybe I will never get the chance to see it as it was, but in some ways i think it better that the illusion will always remain.

samwright8380 wrote:Perhaps to visit this place in reality for some would mean the destruction of a fantasy that has inspired them so much.

Who's to say? What you say might be true for some, but on the other hand it could easily give added weight, realism and emotional impact to the story. After all, everyone knows it's a fictional story, so no one is going to lose any of the story's emotional 'reality' by visiting Tokyo, and Tokyo itself is merely the location where the story takes place. It could easily have taken place in Berlin or Mexico City. I don't think going to Tokyo is liable to take any of the movie's emotional impact away. On the contrary, it's more likely to help us to empathise with the characters and to help us get beyond the location itself and to the heart of the story.

One of my favourite haunts in LA was featured as a location in the movie 'Into the Night'. Knowing the location in reality didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie - on the contrary it enhanced it. Same with the movie 'Miracle Mile', same with the movie 'Die Hard' (even though they digitally added 10 stories to the building's height). I've never seen a movie that wasn't enhanced by seeing the reality. But that's just me - other people might have a different experience.

Beery wrote: It could easily have taken place in Berlin or Mexico City.

i can't say that i agree...japan worked so well in the movie because it creates the greatest sense of alienation. One of the things that made Bob and Charlotte feel so alienated was the "hi-tech" society (think about Bob's startled reaction when he woke up and the shades automatically open). Tokyo is more advanced than either Berlin or Mexico City, and even more advanced than the U.S. Another thing was the language barrier. In Berlin, at least, there are probably more people that speak english than there are in Tokyo. Plus, Sofia knew Tokyo pretty well because she went there as a kid; you can't say the same thing about Berlin or Mexico City. Also, Tokyo had all those beautiful neon lights, which really added some atmosphere to the movie.

While Berlin or Mexico City probably would work, to me, at least, Tokyo seems to be a perfect fit for the movie and the sense of alienation that Sofia was trying to create.

I simply said it could have taken place in those cities. I made no argument about how effective the isolation would have been in either of those places versus Tokyo. That wasn't the point I was making, and the comparative isolation that an English-speaking person might feel in one foreign city versus another is completely subjective.

jml98 wrote:
While Berlin or Mexico City probably would work, to me, at least, Tokyo seems to be a perfect fit for the movie and the sense of alienation that Sofia was trying to create.

I also can't imagine anything but Tokyo. It's necessary and perfect to the whole piece on so many levels.
There is a thread on IMDB at the moment about possible alternate actresses as Charlotte, but the idea of any other actress in that role is rather horrifying to me, the movie would be ruined with anyone else. Anyone but Scarlett or Bill in the roles seems like blasphemy. Sofia very specifically had these people and locations in mind from the beginning, and it shows what a beautifully balanced piece the movie is, that any changes at all are unthinkable.

Well the fact that any other place and any other actors than those used are unimaginable for you doesn't necessarily prove that other locations and other actors could not be used as effectively. What exists is infinitely more imaginable than something that doesn't exist, but it doesn't prove that what doesn't exist cannot exist.

There's no way to tell what location or actor might have worked as well, but it seems to me that placing too much emphasis on the location and the particular actors takes away from the role of the director and supporting crew, not to mention that it disparages the craft of acting. If the people on film were merely Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansen your point might be valid, but since we were seeing two performances, what makes the difference is the actors' ability to become the characters, not their own personalities. If an actor is good, he/she should be able to perform a role effectively, and I'm not omniscient enough to presume that Bill and Scarlett are the only actors for these particular roles, especially when I haven't seen any other actors try on the roles for size. The same goes for the location.

Beery wrote:I simply said it could have taken place in those cities. I made no argument about how effective the isolation would have been in either of those places versus Tokyo. That wasn't the point I was making, and the comparative isolation that an English-speaking person might feel in one foreign city versus another is completely subjective.

i know, i'm just making my own argument as to why I feel Tokyo is the best setting for the movie.

Beery wrote:Well the fact that any other place and any other actors than those used are unimaginable for you doesn't necessarily prove that other locations and other actors could not be used as effectively. What exists is infinitely more imaginable than something that doesn't exist, but it doesn't prove that what doesn't exist cannot exist.

By 'unimaginable', I meant it would be much much less effective (for me), not that I literally cannot imagine it.
And of course, the movie with other actors used as "effectively", will only be effective for you or others. Not necessarily everyone. It is all, always, only in the eye of the beholder.
Maybe it would be as effective to me too, I know that I cannot KNOW that until I see it before me, I certainly don't claim omniscience, but I still doubt it would be. I don't think our imaginations are that lacking that we cannot make a fairly good prediction as to how the movie would be, for ourselves, with other actors and a different location.

Sofia Coppola conceived and wrote the whole thing with Bill and Scarlett and Tokyo in mind. The pre-conceived scenes, visuals, dynamics, atmosphere, colours, sounds, etc, will have been built on and around them, playing on their specific strengths in many subtle ways. There is a base level where Bill and Scarlett are there, and not as performances. Sofia has said she would not do the movie if Bill were not available. This does not take away from the director at least, in this case, but makes her role the most important, because the whole thing was from her mind, using the actors and locations like a painter using paints.
It does mean though that we do not know what her directorial skills might be if she could not get the colours she had chosen for her "painting", and had to do some re-arranging and accounting for that in order to make the subject matter work with the new different "colours".

Sorry, but my whole personality reneges against the idea that things cannot be improved upon, or that what exists is by definition the best it can be. If Sofia was gonna dump this movie if Bill wasn't available I fear she would have been making a big mistake, because I'm sure she could have found someone somewhere who was able to do Bill's job effectively. Steve Martin could probably have pulled it off. Then there's Harrison Ford (who I'd think might be made for a role like this, since the one issue I had with the movie was in believing that Bill Murray could have been an action movie star). Michael Keaton is another who I could see in this role.

I agree with you totally, but I really can't picture Steve Martin in LiT no matter how hard I try. He's just too funny as it is for me to imagine him in that context.

Just Like Honey... wrote:I agree with you totally, but I really can't picture Steve Martin in LiT no matter how hard I try. He's just too funny as it is for me to imagine him in that context.

I think Steve Martin is a serious actor to an even greater extent than Bill Murray. He has done far more serious roles than Bill Murray in some downright dark movies (And the Band Played On, The Spanish Prisoner), and his latest, Shopgirl, is (from what I can gather) a sort of Steve Martin version of LIT. If you can't see Steve in the Bill Murray role I fear you're falling into the same sort of trap as all those people who assumed, because Bill was in it, that LIT was supposed to be a comedy.

Beery wrote: If you can't see Steve in the Bill Murray role I fear you're falling into the same sort of trap as all those people who assumed, because Bill was in it, that LIT was supposed to be a comedy.

well, the trailer was very misleading too...
I could see Steve playing the role, but i just think Bill's style of dry humor was perfect for the part.

I picked up Shopgirl from the library yesterday and read a bit of it, so far it has been a very enjoyable read, and it posses the same sort of tones present in LiT. Mirabelle is definitely a very similar character to Charlotte too.

i made the alternative setting/actors into its own thread...

Beery wrote:

Just Like Honey... wrote:I agree with you totally, but I really can't picture Steve Martin in LiT no matter how hard I try. He's just too funny as it is for me to imagine him in that context.

I think Steve Martin is a serious actor to an even greater extent than Bill Murray. He has done far more serious roles than Bill Murray in some downright dark movies (And the Band Played On, The Spanish Prisoner), and his latest, Shopgirl, is (from what I can gather) a sort of Steve Martin version of LIT. If you can't see Steve in the Bill Murray role I fear you're falling into the same sort of trap as all those people who assumed, because Bill was in it, that LIT was supposed to be a comedy.

Well I actually haven't seen any Steve Martin movies where he plays a serious role so it may have been a bit close minded on my part. I'd have to see some of those movies first. Recommend anything in specific?

I'd like to boost this thread, if only in the small hope that the Park Hyatt pics eventually get posted!!

Lies.

I must see these Pictures...