On the one hand, this film will inspire many conversations, about the film itself, about the future of the characters, and about the meanings and relevance of the situations that the characters experience (assuming you take enough interest in the film not to just blow it off). But I can't LOVE this film the way so many people seem to. I just couldn't get into it, despite its strengths.
Why I couldn't is that I just feel little sympathy for Bob Harris, played by Bill Murray, no matter how good the performance was. He is presented as somewhat of a "has-been" actor. He is miserable in Japan, as he gets 2 million dollars for a couple of whiskey spots--I'll let the absurdity of that thought speak for itself. I understand that he feels he is selling out, and he would rather be doing a play. Well Bob, you just made 2 million dollars--go home and do a play now! A friend who loved the film said that doing those commercials in Japan is "demeaning." Why? Its a regular part of the acting profession. They make their money doing things like this, then they can afford to do the projects they want. This might sound cliche, but I just have trouble feeling bad for a man who has been successful in a field that has such a low success rate; millions of people have tried and failed to break in, and would kill to be in his position. Then there are the experiences in Japan, in particular, the ones on the set, that drive him bonkers. I don't know why. One segment has a director speak in long speeches in Japanese, then his translator gives instructions to Bob with only one word commands. Ok, so that's a little weird and annoying. Then there's the next director, who is nicer, but asks Bob to do things to advertise the drink that don't really make sense, mostly because we sense translation difficulties. So again, that's weird, and yes, this culture is different from our own--what's the big deal here? Bob is asked if he drinks the whiskey, and he replies that he will "as soon as I'm done." As with most of his commercial-set experiences, I just can't share in his cynicism.
Where Sophia Coppolla's cynicism is more successful is in her depiction of actors and directors. Apparently, everyone in this film is based off of someone she knew, with Scareltt Johansson playing "Charlotte," based on Sophia, herself. Sophia met actress Cameron Diaz on the set of her husband's (Spike Jones) film, "Being John Malkovich." This is where the film gets "ballsy." I know of many films in which real people, including actors are represented by fictional characters. The representation of Cameron Diaz in this film, by Anna Farris takes this concept one step further; it is a flat-out vicious ATTACK. Farris plays "Kelly," who is possibly the most clueless, annoying, and outrageously stupid character I've ever seen in a serious film. Since the word is out, Anna has said that she admires Diaz, and comparisons between Diaz and her character are not true. This is mostly damage control I suspect, but I guess it would be necessary here, if to prevent a feud. In recent times, I can't think of anything more specific and nasty!
Then there is the relationship between Bob and Charlotte (which actually takes too long to get going). I don't feel what others do for several reasons. I noticed Scarlett Johansson first in "Ghost World." I don't know why it took so long for her to become the new "it-girl." She is extremely interesting and charismatic (and as she matures is becoming quite sexy). People I have talked to have described the two characters in this film as soul-mates, and have talked about how special their time together was. I have traveled and have actually had similar experiences, and in this case, I empathize with Bob. But I can't see that in Charlotte. Bob will, of course, think of this experience forever. He will always look at it as a bright spot in his depressed existence, and yearn for the day he comes back into contact with Charlotte. Charlotte will probably move on in a few days. Not that this experience couldn't mean as much to a young woman as it does to a man (as it was well presented in, "Before Sunrise"), but I did not get that feeling from her. She will go back to her life, maybe change things, but she will probably meet plenty of others with whom she will share this connection, others who will probably mean much more to her. She was flattered by Bob, and enjoyed his company, but her interest appears misleading in my eyes (maybe this film is more proof that MEN are the real romantics!)
One final thing: I'm getting really tired of seeing marriage depicted in a cynical way by Hollywood. In this film, Bob's wife no longer pays attention to his "needs" as he talks to her on the phone. She is more concerned with material things, like the items and utilities of their house, and doesn't listen to him. He tries to connect with her and she rudely rejects him--she doesn't "get" him, we know! They are in a tired relationship--I've seen this a thousand times in modern movies.
The best thing I can say about "Lost in Translation" is the discussion that it might provoke after viewing it. Grade: B-
Why I couldn't is that I just feel little sympathy for Bob Harris, played by Bill Murray, no matter how good the performance was. He is presented as somewhat of a "has-been" actor. He is miserable in Japan, as he gets 2 million dollars for a couple of whiskey spots--I'll let the absurdity of that thought speak for itself. I understand that he feels he is selling out, and he would rather be doing a play. Well Bob, you just made 2 million dollars--go home and do a play now! A friend who loved the film said that doing those commercials in Japan is "demeaning." Why? Its a regular part of the acting profession. They make their money doing things like this, then they can afford to do the projects they want. This might sound cliche, but I just have trouble feeling bad for a man who has been successful in a field that has such a low success rate; millions of people have tried and failed to break in, and would kill to be in his position. Then there are the experiences in Japan, in particular, the ones on the set, that drive him bonkers. I don't know why. One segment has a director speak in long speeches in Japanese, then his translator gives instructions to Bob with only one word commands. Ok, so that's a little weird and annoying. Then there's the next director, who is nicer, but asks Bob to do things to advertise the drink that don't really make sense, mostly because we sense translation difficulties. So again, that's weird, and yes, this culture is different from our own--what's the big deal here? Bob is asked if he drinks the whiskey, and he replies that he will "as soon as I'm done." As with most of his commercial-set experiences, I just can't share in his cynicism.
Where Sophia Coppolla's cynicism is more successful is in her depiction of actors and directors. Apparently, everyone in this film is based off of someone she knew, with Scareltt Johansson playing "Charlotte," based on Sophia, herself. Sophia met actress Cameron Diaz on the set of her husband's (Spike Jones) film, "Being John Malkovich." This is where the film gets "ballsy." I know of many films in which real people, including actors are represented by fictional characters. The representation of Cameron Diaz in this film, by Anna Farris takes this concept one step further; it is a flat-out vicious ATTACK. Farris plays "Kelly," who is possibly the most clueless, annoying, and outrageously stupid character I've ever seen in a serious film. Since the word is out, Anna has said that she admires Diaz, and comparisons between Diaz and her character are not true. This is mostly damage control I suspect, but I guess it would be necessary here, if to prevent a feud. In recent times, I can't think of anything more specific and nasty!
Then there is the relationship between Bob and Charlotte (which actually takes too long to get going). I don't feel what others do for several reasons. I noticed Scarlett Johansson first in "Ghost World." I don't know why it took so long for her to become the new "it-girl." She is extremely interesting and charismatic (and as she matures is becoming quite sexy). People I have talked to have described the two characters in this film as soul-mates, and have talked about how special their time together was. I have traveled and have actually had similar experiences, and in this case, I empathize with Bob. But I can't see that in Charlotte. Bob will, of course, think of this experience forever. He will always look at it as a bright spot in his depressed existence, and yearn for the day he comes back into contact with Charlotte. Charlotte will probably move on in a few days. Not that this experience couldn't mean as much to a young woman as it does to a man (as it was well presented in, "Before Sunrise"), but I did not get that feeling from her. She will go back to her life, maybe change things, but she will probably meet plenty of others with whom she will share this connection, others who will probably mean much more to her. She was flattered by Bob, and enjoyed his company, but her interest appears misleading in my eyes (maybe this film is more proof that MEN are the real romantics!)
One final thing: I'm getting really tired of seeing marriage depicted in a cynical way by Hollywood. In this film, Bob's wife no longer pays attention to his "needs" as he talks to her on the phone. She is more concerned with material things, like the items and utilities of their house, and doesn't listen to him. He tries to connect with her and she rudely rejects him--she doesn't "get" him, we know! They are in a tired relationship--I've seen this a thousand times in modern movies.
The best thing I can say about "Lost in Translation" is the discussion that it might provoke after viewing it. Grade: B-