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

What makes LiT either loved or hated?

#1 Post by Beery » Thu Dec 23, 2004 10:02 pm

I was wondering why there is such a polarity of opinions about this movie? I mean some people just love it and some absolutely detest it. There doesn't seem to be any middle ground - I mean no one ever seems to say "oh yeah, LiT, it was okay".

Why is that?

Is it just because if you 'get' it, it's great, and if you don't it's just a long boring movie with no apparent plot? Or is there more to it than that? Is it because it requires something from the viewer - something that some people just don't have? What's the story?
You want more mysterious? I'll just try and think, "Where the hell's the whiskey?"

User avatar
Blissbomb
Stocking Lipper
Posts: 37
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Location: Australia

#2 Post by Blissbomb » Fri Dec 24, 2004 12:37 am

From my own personal experience and seeing other boards the people that actually like/get this movie are in the minority. The people that dont get it, the majority, I think were expecting another outrageous slapstick comedy from Bill Murray. Boy were they dissappointed.
Lost in World

jml98
Asleep
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:37 pm

#3 Post by jml98 » Fri Dec 24, 2004 4:27 am

Blissbomb wrote: I think were expecting another outrageous slapstick comedy from Bill Murray.
actually, i was expecting a comedy (maybe a typical hollywood romantic comedy) too, judging by the previews. it's an interesting question. In my experiences ppl either hate it or love it too, theres no middle ground. i really coudlnt' say why that is. The common response from those that hate it is "it's so boring". But is it boring because they didn't get it? or because they don't like what the movie was. I think most didn't get it, but there are some that perhaps just don't like what the movie really was. This is a interesting question, any other thoughts members??
Image

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

#4 Post by Beery » Fri Dec 24, 2004 10:54 am

I think there's a difference between 'getting' it, by which I mean that it has an emotional impact on a viewer, and understanding it. You can understand what this movie is all about, but you still might not have an emotional response to it.

I think we who had an emotional response to it are in a very small minority. Those who understand it but didn't emotionally connect with it are in a larger minority. While a majority didn't even understand what the movie was supposed to be about.

So I guess my question is, why are the folks who understand it so silent? Is my assessment wrong - are there more of us who 'get' the movie than there are folks who merely understand it? Is it the case that viewers only fall into two groups: those who 'get' it and those who can't even understand it? Is that why there are very few luke-warm reviews? Or is it simply that a luke-warm reception rarely motivates a person to write a review?
You want more mysterious? I'll just try and think, "Where the hell's the whiskey?"

Silver

#5 Post by Silver » Fri Dec 24, 2004 2:31 pm

It could also be the marketing strategy that Focus Films used. It was hailed as a hilarious comedy. There were comedic parts, but it fell into more of a dramedy category. People see Bill Murray's name and it's an automatic laughfest. Years ago he co-starred in "Tootsie" with Dustin Hoffman and he was not listed in the opening credits. The reason being that the producers and director Sydney Pollack did not want to detract from the film and the original intent.

Bill Murray was listed in the end credits.

User avatar
findingcharlotte
Charlie Brown
Posts: 114
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 3:16 pm

" getting Lit "

#6 Post by findingcharlotte » Sat Dec 25, 2004 1:16 am

I commented on this in an earlier post ...and several people here have hit on it too.. I think it was in large part due to bad promotion ...It WAS billed as " the comedy of the year " etc etc..and those in cohoots with Focus didnt seem ready for the enthusiasm for LIT out of the festival market..so they took this non mainstream piece and pushed it as a mainstream piece...Those who took this at its word were understandably disappointed.
Call me if you get lost...

" before we go, Im not as brave as I told you.."

jml98
Asleep
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 11:37 pm

Re: " getting Lit "

#7 Post by jml98 » Sat Dec 25, 2004 3:13 am

findingcharlotte wrote:I commented on this in an earlier post ...and several people here have hit on it too.. I think it was in large part due to bad promotion ...It WAS billed as " the comedy of the year " etc etc..and those in cohoots with Focus didnt seem ready for the enthusiasm for LIT out of the festival market..so they took this non mainstream piece and pushed it as a mainstream piece...Those who took this at its word were understandably disappointed.
While that does explain a lot of people's reactions, I don't think that completely explains it. I thought it was just a straight comedy before i saw it. Perhaps some or even the majority of people didn't like it because they didn't get what they wanted, but I'm sure there are some that didn't like it for other reasons (which i can't explain....)
Image

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

#8 Post by Beery » Sat Dec 25, 2004 6:53 pm

Well all I knew of the movie before it came out was the preview, and I really didn't get the impression that it was a pure comedy. Also, having seen Bill Murray play totally straight in The Razor's Edge, and straight roles in humourous films like Ed Wood, and straight roles in indy films like Rushmore, his starring in the movie never led me to believe it was to be a comedy either. I think I've seen Murray play as many straight roles as humourous ones.

Of course the movies in which I've seen him play serious roles tend to be independent movies or 'arty' pieces, so I guess I have to forgive the unwashed masses for the way they felt bamboozled by the fact that all of Murray's big Hollywood movies are outright comedies. However, I do find it hard to understand why the majority of moviegoers seem drawn only to big budget Hollywood crap, so in a sense it was their own pedestrian tastes that bamboozled them.

Okay, elitist rant over. Sorry.
You want more mysterious? I'll just try and think, "Where the hell's the whiskey?"

User avatar
The Shoegazer
Japanese Surfer
Posts: 128
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2004 10:56 pm
Location: USA

#9 Post by The Shoegazer » Mon Dec 27, 2004 4:52 pm

Yeah, I noticed that too. No one who I met who watched it said it was "ok"
They said "what a bore" (majority) and a few said "amazing" "changed my life"(minority) .I guess its because if you really get the point of the movie and go deeper under the surface and can relate in some way you loved it. Also I think Hollywood got many used to the idea of "we'll give you an obvious plot and clear cut ending" instead of "Here are those people's lifes, take them and make up your own ending and deeper plot by the process of thought" which was the case in LiT. You can't blame those people who hated it, its their opinion but I am very sorry to hear that so many people disliked it so much.

User avatar
A moment of silence
Suntory Time
Posts: 179
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 9:01 pm
Location: New York

#10 Post by A moment of silence » Tue Oct 04, 2005 10:29 pm

My personal opinion: Movies that are so smart, meaning realistic and original tend to be appreciated or hated. The slow paced, quiet, rough film can make one become completely interested or bored. This all depends on the person. Hey, there are people out there who think this movie is o.k. I bet, man. But so far, it's extremes opinion, bro. It's too powerful and different to be placed in the middle.
Nothing is more beautiful than something that will not last

User avatar
adrien950
Japanese Surfer
Posts: 136
Joined: Tue Jul 19, 2005 10:58 pm
Location: TEXAS
Contact:

#11 Post by adrien950 » Thu Oct 06, 2005 3:12 pm

Of all the people I have recommended this movie to..the majority have said that it was boring,no plot,slow,etc.
1 of many said they loved it. and 2 said it was O.K...which means they didn't care for it , but didnt want to hurt my feelings. :?
Image

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

#12 Post by Cryogenic » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:34 am

Of everybody I personally know, only one other person got this film. Another friend, a flatmate from uni, my brother, my mom and my stepdad all disliked it. The film is heavily trolled on IMDb, lots of people call it shallow, vacuous, pretentious, even racist etc.

The politically correct side of me says, if someone doesn't get this, then it's because they lack the necessary life experiences and empathetic responses to connect with the characters and the themes. Art is subjective. Bla bla.

The "Mr Hyde", let-em-rip sde of me says . . . these people don't have an artistic bone in their body. In fact, they don't even have souls. They're walking zombies! (Yep, even my own friends and family!).

Well, which is the truth? Maybe they both are true, from a certain point of view. This film seems to require both a comprehension of life and an appreciation for art that many lack. Period.

What I love about all of this is that Sofia Coppola seems to have planned for it: "Lost In Translation". It's like she is saying, "There will be people who will be LOST watching this film, but don't bother to TRANSLATE for them, because your explanation will only be LOST IN TRANSLATION." I love that. Those who get it, really get it . . . and the rest can live in ignorance.

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

#13 Post by Beery » Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:55 am

Yeah. I think this will become one of those movies like 'It's a Wonderful Life' or 'The Night of the Hunter' that is ignored or disliked upon theatrical release, but regarded as a classic in years to come.

Just as a matter of interest, what movie won the Oscar for best movie the year that LiT was nominated?
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

#14 Post by Cryogenic » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:17 am

Beery wrote:Just as a matter of interest, what movie won the Oscar for best movie the year that LiT was nominated?
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King". It infamously scooped 11 Oscars -- a very blatant piece of self-congratulation by Hollywood for Peter Jackson. "Lost in Translation", "Seabiscuit", "Cold Mountain", "House of Sand and Fog", "21 Grams" and "City of God" failed to win anything. I truly believe that LiT should have won "Best Picture", "Best Actor in a Leading Role" (Bill Murray), "Best Director", "Best Screenplay, Original Writing", "Best Cinematography", "Best Sound Mixing", "Best Editing" and "Best Sound Editing". Of course, it only won one of those, and wasn't even nominated in some of those areas.

Incidentally . . . you can see all the nominees and winners for each category here: http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards/Aca ... s_USA/2004 If you want to look back through previous years, or advance to more recent ones, just delete the year in the URL and replace it with the one you're interested in. A very useful bookmark!

Another thing about loving / hating LiT:

Maybe one needs to have some intrinsic fascination with Japan and Eastern culture. In spite of claims to the contrary, the film does tastefully depict a foreign land, showing various facets throughout its relatively lean running time. The film has a once-in-a-lifetime, yet timeless feel to it. And Japan really brings that out, especially as Sofia shows us both the modern (e.g. Tokyo) and the ancient (e.g. Kyoto). Incidentally, while the former is now the capital of Japan, it is the latter that used to be. Here we have another definition for understanding the film: life is transitory; things change. I suppose you have to be a romantic old soul to get these things.

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

#15 Post by Beery » Wed Oct 17, 2007 8:31 am

Hmmm. Here's the thing about Return of the King - personally I don't reckon it was that good of a movie - I mean at all. Sure, it was very good in the effects department, but as far as script, directing and acting are concerned it's very mediocre.

I think LiT should have at least won Coppola Best Director and Best Screenplay. I was very disappointed in the Academy Awards that year. But then again I reckon The Cannes Film Festival is a much better judge of movies. I think LiT pretty much swept every film festival award except The Oscars. I think it says something interesting about old Oscar when he snubs LiT in favour of LotR:RotK. It's like, wow! How did they get that so wrong? Any of the other films nominated that year would have been a better choice.
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

#16 Post by Cryogenic » Wed Oct 17, 2007 9:10 am

Beery wrote:Hmmm. Here's the thing about Return of the King - personally I don't reckon it was that good of a movie - I mean at all. Sure, it was very good in the effects department, but as far as script, directing and acting are concerned it's very mediocre.
No, I'm with you. I think that the entire "The Lord of the Rings" movie series is terribly mediocre. The acting is hammy and over-the-top, the screenplays are extremely portentous and over-bearing and the direction is fit for TV (close-ups, action and reaction edits). Still, that's a minority opinion.
Beery wrote: I think it says something interesting about old Oscar when he snubs LiT in favour of LotR:RotK. It's like, wow! How did they get that so wrong? Any of the other films nominated that year would have been a better choice.
The Academy didn't get it "wrong" -- not from its point of view. LotR: RotK was highly decorated as an acknowledgement of Peter Jackson's contribution to "cinema"; i.e. his ability to keep people going to the cinema, giving Hollywood a share of the takings and allowing punters to be exposed to Hollywood film trailers before the movie. Those eleven Oscars were a big "thank you" to Jackson -- that's why better, more obscure movies were denied.
Beery wrote:I think LiT should have at least won Coppola Best Director and Best Screenplay.
I also gave shout-outs to ACTING because Bill Murray was truly soulful, CINEMATOGRAPHY because Lance Acord's pastel look is astonishing and SOUND because its one of the most overlooked aspects of movie-making and LiT has stunning sound design. The EDITING by Sarah Flack is also pitch-perfect; LiT has a beguiling rhythm that other films cannot touch. And the cherry on the top would have been "Best Picture" -- because I can't think of a more remarkable movie this side of the 21st century.

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

#17 Post by Beery » Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:35 pm

Cryogenic wrote:
Beery wrote: I think it says something interesting about old Oscar when he snubs LiT in favour of LotR:RotK. It's like, wow! How did they get that so wrong? Any of the other films nominated that year would have been a better choice.
The Academy didn't get it "wrong" -- not from its point of view. LotR: RotK was highly decorated as an acknowledgement of Peter Jackson's contribution to "cinema"; i.e. his ability to keep people going to the cinema, giving Hollywood a share of the takings and allowing punters to be exposed to Hollywood film trailers before the movie...
But that's not what the Oscars are supposed to be about. According to the AMPAS site the academy "requires the voting members of the Academy to make their choices based solely on the artistic and technical merits of the eligible films and achievements". Clearly they got it wrong even based on their own criteria. Heck, RotK wasn't even the best LotR film - that was clearly the first one (FotR), and that didn't get an Oscar.
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

#18 Post by Cryogenic » Wed Oct 17, 2007 12:58 pm

Beery wrote:
Cryogenic wrote:
Beery wrote: I think it says something interesting about old Oscar when he snubs LiT in favour of LotR:RotK. It's like, wow! How did they get that so wrong? Any of the other films nominated that year would have been a better choice.
The Academy didn't get it "wrong" -- not from its point of view. LotR: RotK was highly decorated as an acknowledgement of Peter Jackson's contribution to "cinema"; i.e. his ability to keep people going to the cinema, giving Hollywood a share of the takings and allowing punters to be exposed to Hollywood film trailers before the movie...
But that's not what the Oscars are supposed to be about. According to the AMPAS site the academy "requires the voting members of the Academy to make their choices based solely on the artistic and technical merits of the eligible films and achievements". Clearly they got it wrong even based on their own criteria. Heck, RotK wasn't even the best LotR film - that was clearly the first one (FotR), and that didn't get an Oscar.
I agree with you. I think that "Fellowship of the Ring" was the most accomplished of the three installments. In an ideal world, the Academy would obviously give awards to the most artistically profound of that year's films, but in an ideal world, you wouldn't have art (because you wouldn't need it), either. You have to take the rough with the smooth. "Citizen Kane" and "Pulp Fiction" are infamous Academy snubs. "Lost in Translation" is just one in a long line of victims. But the power of these films speaks for itself.

To expound on that point about art: Art exists to shape and comment upon our reality. And reality is naturally entropic / messy. Nothing is perfect. In fact, much is ironic. Irony, of one sort or another, pervades LiT from top to bottom. Bob and Charlotte connect in a place where they feel disconnected. They're also from opposing sides of experience, but they share the same crisis. Bob's being paid $2 million to endorse a whiskey, but he's not even allowed to drink a real whiskey (good signature!). He's also hired because he's a mature movie star, but he's told by the photographer to pose as other movie stars. That's what makes the film so much fun, not to mention poignant. LiT says that life is ridiculous, but life is worth living. You can't live with absurdity, but you also can't live without it. There's the rub.

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

#19 Post by Beery » Wed Oct 17, 2007 5:25 pm

Hmm. I'm not sure that I agree that a perfect world wouldn't need art. Surely in a perfect world everything would be art.
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

#20 Post by Cryogenic » Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:10 pm

Beery wrote:Hmm. I'm not sure that I agree that a perfect world wouldn't need art. Surely in a perfect world everything would be art.
This is an intriguing thought and exploring it could take an entire message board of its own. In a perfect world, I don't think art would exist; art explores the peculiarities, contradictions and imperfections of existence. But that may depend on your definition of "perfect", not to mention your definition of "art". I'll jump off this train while I still can, so please excuse me for bailing out.

Since you created this thread to discuss the reasons that LiT is loved and hated, I'd like to return to that. I think one of the reasons it is frequently derided is because it is misunderstood. Intolerance stems from ignorance and ignorance stems from a lack of understanding.

Most people don't appear to understand a film that contrives to have two protagonists who have fallen out of the loop. Whether a "normal" moviegoer is watching something as uplifting as "Superman" or as depressing as "Sophie's Choice", as abstract as "Apocalypse Now" or as fun as "Die Hard", these films all have something in common: their characters are ostensibly doing a job or performing a duty, or have been forced out of doing a job or performing a duty, of some kind. LiT is different. While Bob has come to Tokyo for a job, it's one he doesn't relish or even pretend to, and the literal aspects of his job barely factor into the film at all. If a viewer turns to Charlotte for hope, it's even worse for them -- for she's doing nothing at all. So, realising that they're in for a hard slog, viewers start grasping for anything. Harsh surroundings that might jolt the protagonists to life? Nope. A posh hotel with a jazz band and swimming pool. Lots of rapid-fire gags and humour? Nope. Subtle, sardonic "situational humour". Memorable movie dialogue and electrifying theatrics? Nope. Soft, understated, "observational acting". A detailed portrait of another land and culture? Nope. Gentle, hyper-real, impressionistic montages. At some point in all of that, the common reaction is to balk. "Hang on! This film is nonsense! Nothing happens! It's pointless, empty, insulting and racist!"

Bill Murray has said that the "bed scene" is where a viewer decides whether he or she likes the film or not. Certainly, I think that that is the scene that finally sells LiT to you or not. But I think a viewer's decision-making ability is an illusion. No one ever gets to decide whether they like a film or not. You either settle into a picture's groove or you do not. Psychologists say that first impressions count and that we form our first impressions in approximately 15 seconds or less. And what are the first 15 seconds of "Lost in Translation"? That's right: a butt. Now, everyone may have laughed or scratched their head, or some combination, when they first saw this, but I believe some were already thinking one way, and others were thinking along others. In effect, to steal Bill Murray's phrasing, and bearing in mind what I subsequently said, viewers "decided" whether they liked the film or not before the actual title had even come up (it takes 30 seconds for the title to be fully rendered). The sum total of experiences in their head, combined with the thoughts and feelings they were having as they watched, decided for them. That's not to say anyone came to a conclusion about the film there and then, but that they had already (unknowingly) settled the parameters of that conclusion before the film had even kicked off. The butt is effectively the "prima": how you respond there determines how you'll respond to the rest of the film. It's perhaps appropriate that this film was distributed by "Focus Pictures"; for one's focus determines one's reality.

I hope I haven't appeared to have said -- and I hope I haven't actually said -- two contradictory things there. My former paragraph implies that a viewer had a rudimentary level of patience much further than the teaser before coming down on the film one way or another, while my latter paragraph asserts that their interpretative ability was decided before they even knew who Bob or Charlotte were. I think both are true. If a viewer reacted in some subliminally negative way to the teaser, then that predisposed them to not "getting" the themes and approach of the picture, which would then have led them to aimlessly clutch at one straw after another. Of course, first impressions are also challenged, and can sometimes be reversed, over time, but they're also much harder to change than to create. As a matter of cosmic history, it is always easier to destroy than to create, except in the realm of the human mind. I believe it was very clever of Sofia Coppola to start her film with that shot; she effectively created a subliminal message at 24 frames per second for thirty seconds, microscopically encapsulating the tone and mood of the film in a very simple, but devastatingly effective, piece of cinema. I daresay that some also felt that Sofia Coppola was having a joke at their expense, shoving a bum in their face and telling them that the meaning was "Lost in Translation". That's just ingenious. The glum, and sometimes virulent, responses are indicative of what most people expect a film to be, and what happens when those expectations aren't met.

Post Reply