Lost in Translation?
- Started
- Last post
- 85 Responses
- ********0
you don't get it. He is complaining about doing another commercial, he's getting paid 2 million for it. What i am saying is that he has already bought himself the freedom to take on more challenging roles. for example Jim Carrey took on eternal sunshine of the spotless mind for almost nothing. He cares about the role and the movie not the cash.
- ********0
jim carrey is not complaining
- sexypixel0
apparently it took months for him to be tracked down, and another few months to convince him to take the role. I think he was the perfect person for the role. And ya, people with money shouldnt be aloud to have feelings, who do they think the are?
- ********0
i'm saying he should not complain about the situation he is in. Not about having feelings.
- ********0
Not true about jim carrey.
- sexypixel0
dont think he is compaining about the money, more about being stuck in a hotel, on his own in a strange country, the whole movie is about him making the most of the situation. The scene in the hospital, he made everyone around him laugh even though the didnt have a clue what he was talking about. the movie was a bit lost in translation on you too.
- sexypixel0
was talking about Bill Murray, not Carey
- ********0
i don't think so its about a guy looking back at his life, and coming to terms with where he is at. And she is just starting and wondering about where she wants to go.
if you really think the movie is about just a guy in japan then you are lost in general.
- sexypixel0
there are many aspects to the movie, but i am explaining the part about the location, that you started to give out about. It's not about 2 million what so ever, nor is it about him complaining about 'being in a swanky hotel' and you are contradicting yourself again
- ********0
i really don't think you know what i am taking about and from the sounds of it i really don't think you know what that movie is about.
and i never said the movie was about 2 million, i'm talking about choices. He made lifeless choices, and peopel like that?
- sexypixel0
ok now I get you. Your original post was a bit shallow and lacked explaination.
i agree he didnt make good choices, but if he did there wouldnt really be a movie. If you want human suffering to the extreme and in its rawest form then I suggest you go and watch 21 grams. But for me, LIT was a nice enjoyable slice of life.
- ********0
It won the oscar for best original screenplay. I don't think it deserves it.
- bgheen0
“You just know.”
This, for a long time in my life, was a good enough answer when questioning matters of art. I often mistook the personal nature of interaction and appreciation of art as a matter of subjectivity. When I decided to pursue art as a career, it became increasingly important to study the underlying nature of art, to unravel the mysteries of perception and reaction and defend against the temptations of taste.
Art is man-made. Things found in nature might be astoundingly beautiful and inspirational, but those qualities are not important to art. Art is a human invention and a human effect; therefore a human must create it.
Art is exceptional. Truly exceptional things are a rare –commodity. Exceptional works combine not only a high degree of craft, concept and presentation, but also that intangible feeling that takes your breath away, weakens your knees and brings you to the pensive state of understanding when you see a work that is truly art.
Art is Art. Art is purposeful without having intent. Art exists without aid or reliance on anything other than its own nature.
Though certainly not a fundamental element, rarity is all too common in art today. I’m lucky enough to have recently experienced true art, at my favorite we-give-student-discounts movie theater, of all places. I saw Sofia Coppola’s Lost in Translation.
Lost in Translation is set in Japan and in many ways is about Japan. Coppola made many decisions that resulted in true art. The most important of which came very early on, the decision to construct the film in a fashion that emphasizes the ideals and aesthetics of Japanese art, in specific: the Rock Gardens of Ryoanji. A film and a garden aren’t the most obvious of artistic siblings. There are some surface similarities such the Garden’s inability to be experienced from only one angle, requiring the viewer to move to different vantage points is similar to film’s (or any other time-based media) need to be experienced from start to finish, a simple glance won’t do. From there, more subtle and important similarities arise.
Coppola wrote the scant script of 75 pages in block form, meaning she left out much of the already sparse dialogue, instead noting emotions, mood and context, leaving the details of exactly what was said to the actors. Like the Rock Gardens, the film is “complete but not finished” (Deutsch 25). This example summarizes the film’s production style, a loose structure on which spontaneous, truthful, mundane details and tangents are encouraged to develop. This doctrine is perfectly complementary to the thematic elements of human interaction, culture clashes and the whimsical chaos of life represented in the film.
The lead character, Bob Harris, was specifically written for Bill Murray. Coppola stated that she wouldn’t have made the film if Murray hadn’t played the role. Every element of true art is a complementary system of synergy, working in conjunction with the whole. The option of another actor was never a possibility because unlike other films, the role wasn’t for “the best fit;” it was for Bill Murray, if not he, than no one and no film. The choice of the lead actor is like a monk choosing the proper rake to make each deliberate mark in the Garden.
Despite the limited budget of two million dollars and an extremely limited principle photography timetable of 27 days, Coppola restricted production planning to only a light shooting schedule. Actor’s blocking, shot composition, set dressing, atmosphere, dialogue and pace was left to organically develop as a reaction of the mood of the cast and the eccentricities of each environment. The cast and crew, and consequently the film, were to experience what the characters were: reacting to a foreign world. Critics and audiences reacted accordingly. Roger Ebert writes “I loved the way Coppola and her actors negotiated the hazards of romance and comedy, taking what little they needed and depending for the rest on the truth of the characters” (Ebert).
Barry Lyndon, by Stanly Kubrick was shot using only room lighting, a particular challenge for indoor-night scenes due to its late 18th century setting (Warner Brothers). A film movement in Scandinavia called the Naturalist Films craft movies by adhering to a strict set of rules regarding what you can and cannot do in filming (Dogme95). These guidelines were implemented as an attempt to remove the artificial nature of most commercial films. Films that are Art take their concepts and apply it beyond narrative and plot, to the execution and method of the film.
Films, even ones that are independent and crafted reactively are inherently subjective in nature. One person, the director, makes all final decisions. Coppola recognized this fact and though she doesn’t claim to have made it free of ego, she, like a John Cage composition, tried to remove her fingerprints (Hyde).
During the filming of one of the most important, final scenes, the two lead performers got caught up in their characters, abandoned the script and kissed. Even though this negated much of the previous character development and plot line, Coppola decided to take a step back and let her movie change. Lesser directors would say the actors went too far, but Coppola trusted their judgment. After all, had she not crafted an environment of spontaneity to let this sort of life-like thing occur? This scene, akin to “the splendid fusion of chance and determination” of the asymmetry of the Garden (Deutsch 26), became one of the most memorable.
Lance Accord, the director of photography, continued this purity of thought through to the composition of the film. He shot reactively to the environment and performances. He would often turn down large, steady cameras for smaller, unstable hand-held models to get into tight corners, naturally perform awkward movements and immediately try any idea he had (“Lost on Location”). This style worked beautifully for the film, resulting in powerfully emotive depictions of the hectic, chaotic bustle of Tokyo, the lonesome haze of the Park Hyatt bar, the explosively colorful and contemplative atmosphere of Kyoto’s Buddhist temples and gardens and of course, the incredibly rich performances of the actors.
As Charlotte, the other leading character, travels through these compellingly shot locations, specifically the arcades of Tokyo, the flower garden of the Park Hyatt and the Buddhist temples in Kyoto, the audience feels like a stranger in a strange land. The landscapes are alien, but so is the mood. Visitors to the Garden feel the same way. “One encounters it (the Garden) as a stepping away from the humdrum chaos of one’s ordinary being and routine” (Deutsch 33). Sitting in the theater traveling with Charlotte, or standing on a rock island in the Garden, viewers begin to see the art as a mirror, a portal to reflect upon themselves. “Art represents a “harmonization of conflict,” that an art-work integrates the raw contents of existential conflicts into a formed unity, and that the viewer, catharsis-wise, is able to recognize the structure of his own conflicts in the light of this unity” (Deutsch 32).
The soundtrack, the unofficial fourth leading character in the film, also reflects this contemplative nature, guiding the audience through the many bittersweet emotional waves. The selection of the music was done in the same reactive manner as the rest of the film. Coppola says in an interview “We sent him [Kevin Shields of My Bloody Valentine] dailies on tape and he wrote music to the images” (UK Yahoo! Movies).
To make art is a conscious decision. Coppola understood the importance of purity of form, idea and execution. The film is deceivingly simple, a film of character, location and soundtrack, devoid of a palpable plot. The Rock Garden of Ryoanji is also simple, “a garden of just stone and gravel,” devoid of obvious purpose and yet, these two works of art, executed with similar goals, stimulate the soul and celebrates in a beauty that is “at once radiant and abysmal(Deutsch 34).”
Sitting there, in the darkened theater, I sat in silence, savoring the last echoes and waves of sensation of this incredible accomplishment. This, I thought, is truly art. I ‘just knew.’
- ********0
weak! art defined by a movie critic, give me a brake.
- ********0
- zeroblade0
Lost in Translation is the first movie in two decades that made me fall asleep while watching.
The only reason why the director won was because her father's in the Academy.
- zzzorzzz0
whoever says this movie is bad is either blind, deaf, or both. probably both. yet it's true we can't have Sly or Kurt Russell or Richard Gere or Bruce Willis or even Brad Pitt in every movie. and hell, are we happy for this.
- r_gaberz0
wait... why are you all taking about a commentary track
the dvd has none.
- mg330
thong, what are you talking about?
"He is complaining about doing another commercial, he's getting paid 2 million for it. What i am saying is that he has already bought himself the freedom to take on more challenging roles. for example Jim Carrey took on eternal sunshine of the spotless mind for almost nothing"
Why are you comparing Bill Murray's CHARECTER in the movie making $2mill with what Jim Carey got paid IN REAL LIFE to do Eternal...
That makes no sense!
- anon25730
You wanna talk about an overated film ? How about Once Upon a Time in America ! that film is a mess !! worst edting ever .. no focus and bad direction.
It was originally written as 3 part film like the Godfather trilogy but was butchered down to 3 hours, then butchered again to 135mins for the original release ..
the result .. a mess .. could have been soooo good as well .. shame.
Lost in Translation is lost on idiots .. brilliant brilliant film