What makes LiT either loved or hated?

Discuss the fabulous movie Lost In Translation!

Moderator: Bob

Message
Author
User avatar
Beery
LIT Super Fan
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:15 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

#21 Post by Beery » Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:46 pm

I agree. The virulence of the negative reactions actually reminds me of another movie - Gus van Sant's 'Elephant'. This was another movie which challenged its audience to think a little differently about what films should be doing, in that it gave no comforting spoonfeeding of emotions and, just like LiT there's no catharsis at the end of the film. Both of these films end in a seemingly unresolved state, at least in terms of standard Hollywood fare. Another film that challenges an audience's preconceptions about movies is the 1973 version of 'The Wicker Man' - a whodunnit/musical/horror film that is very disturbing.

I think when a film gives the viewer the gift of allowing it to make up its own mind it tends to turn off those who demand that a film explain itself. This leads me to believe that there are basically two kinds of moviegoers - those who want movies merely to entertain and satiate them and those who are willing to do some mental work and thereby learn something about themselves. Personally I resent a movie when it tells me how to feel and what to think, but I guess some folks like the relaxation of being able to turn off their critical faculties when they go into a movie theatre.
You want more mysterious? I'll just try and think, "Where the hell's the whiskey?"

User avatar
Cryogenic
Mr. Kazu
Posts: 76
Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 7:08 pm

#22 Post by Cryogenic » Thu Oct 18, 2007 4:10 pm

Beery wrote:I agree. The virulence of the negative reactions actually reminds me of another movie - Gus van Sant's 'Elephant'. This was another movie which challenged its audience to think a little differently about what films should be doing, in that it gave no comforting spoonfeeding of emotions and, just like LiT there's no catharsis at the end of the film. Both of these films end in a seemingly unresolved state, at least in terms of standard Hollywood fare. Another film that challenges an audience's preconceptions about movies is the 1973 version of 'The Wicker Man' - a whodunnit/musical/horror film that is very disturbing.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen any of those pictures. The only Gus Van Sant pictures I've seen are "Good Will Hunting", which I used to love but have rolled back on a little, and "Psycho", which was a fascinating, yet completely superfluous, re-make, in my opinion, and I've never seen "The Wicker Man" or any other Robin Hardy picture. Where was I? Oh, yes. I was about to agree and disagree with you over the matter of LiT's ending. While it's certainly unconventional and unresolved by Hollywood's standards, I actually think it's very cathartic. Bob returning to Charlotte, and then him being driven away to the sounds of "Just Like Honey", is an extremely enervating experience. It might be bittersweet, but it's also uplifting and beautiful . . . or, at least, that's how it always works for me. Still, in spite of how magnificent that ending is, you know some people have sat there and said, "AND . . . ?"
Beery wrote:I think when a film gives the viewer the gift of allowing it to make up its own mind it tends to turn off those who demand that a film explain itself. This leads me to believe that there are basically two kinds of moviegoers - those who want movies merely to entertain and satiate them and those who are willing to do some mental work and thereby learn something about themselves. Personally I resent a movie when it tells me how to feel and what to think, but I guess some folks like the relaxation of being able to turn off their critical faculties when they go into a movie theatre.
This is a cyclical debate I've had on more than one occasion with a friend. He asserts that most people go to the cinema for entertainment and that's all they want; I assert that entertainment is all well and good, but cinema is an artform and should be embraced on multiple levels. Oddly, this friend of mine LOVES "Lost in Translation"; indeed, he's that sole exception I referred to earlier. But, by and large, he and I disagree over what constitutes a good film. I also resent being spoonfed information -- when a film exists just to explain, it becomes an instruction manual, not art. Art is meant to shape and convey ideas; not lecture or pound things into you. That's not to say that art cannot instruct; indeed, I think art DOES instruct, but it should do this ephemerally and enigmatically. My argument against simple entertainment is that a film can entertain and still be artful -- e.g. the "Star Wars" movies. "Lost in Translation" is another example; I find it very entertaining and very artful. But I suppose that it's all relative. Still, I entirely follow you on this one: some people just don't want to think or have rich and meaningful experiences when they enter an auditorium or start their DVD up.

User avatar
Beery
LIT Super Fan
Posts: 60
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 9:15 am
Location: Boston, MA, USA

#23 Post by Beery » Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:14 pm

I found the ending cathartic too, but I guess my point was that it wasn't cathartic in the traditional sense - i.e. the guy doesn't get the girl and the villain isn't blasted out of the 50th floor of an office building to die screaming.

Hehe, now that would have been funny if they'd ended it like Die Hard: Bob and Charlotte go up to the lounge, Bob is packing an MP5 sub-machine gun. Charlotte watches as Bob blasts the vacuuous movie star chick (who is still singing karaoke badly) through the plate glass window and into oblivion, then Charlotte hugs him and they walk into the elevator.

I guess that would have been a different movie altogether. Maybe that movie would have got a good reaction from the masses.
You want more mysterious? I'll just try and think, "Where the hell's the whiskey?"

User avatar
Flyonthewall
WooHoo Guy
Posts: 153
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 4:57 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA

#24 Post by Flyonthewall » Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:05 am

Im with the thought that not too many people "get" this movie. I just happened to experience this movie at a time in my life that made me feel like I completely related to the movie (especially Bob's marriage portrayal) that I almost felt envious of Bob.

I also agree that the end was very cathartic. Both Bob and Charlotte felt that, because of the connection, they were no longer alone... and that provided them strength to make their respective situations better.
"...Stay here, with me...."

The Search for Charlotte continues....

User avatar
Tombo
Lounge Singer
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Nov 24, 2006 7:37 pm
Location: Birmingham,U.K.

#25 Post by Tombo » Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:38 am

That's what I love about this site-people always seem to come up with new interpretations and viewpoints,making me see the film in yet another,different way.

And I was,and still am envious of Bill Murray in the film! Damn right! I mean,who wouldn't be?

Post Reply