homenycworld/culture exchange9.11.01homenewsservicesarchivecontactAbout 12gauge.com9.11.01

 Poetry
 Fiction
 Gallery
 Interviews
--------
 Books
 Music
 Movies
 Dance
 Theater
 Art Scene
--------
 Out There
 Community
 Technology
 Travel
 Outdoors
 Sports
--------
 Multimedia
 Events
 Search
 Author List
 Submissions
 Bulletin Board
 Classifieds

Email 12-Gauge

In Association with Amazon.com



  

Lost in Translation (2003)
Review by Will Manuel
film Film Review Archive

Written & Directed by Sofia Coppola

Scarlett Johansson .... Charlotte
Bill Murray .... Bob Harris

 

Sofia Coppola's new film Lost In Translation has a lot going for it. It has Bill Murray, that other chick from Ghost World, and more quirky Japanese people than you can shake a Tokyo ball at. It offers American audiences more about modern Japan than I ever could. Where else can you hang with young Asian chicks in Cossack hats besides, of course, Budweiser ads? Then there's the not-young Asian chicks not in Cossack hats. I for one was fascinated to learn that Japanese women execs are mainly used for reception lines, and they dress exactly the same as Japanese prostitutes, who hold the real power in society. Of course Peter Greenaway's Eight And A Half Women already broke this story, including the deal with loneliness, pre and post mid-life crisis, and especially the deal with pachinko, and in a much darker, richer, more surreal context. But that's okay. Greenaway's a complete nut job, and besides, he left out the Simon and Garfunkel-tinged hotel bars, Nicole Kidman's formerly-anorexic sister, positive karaoke, Japanese T.V. ad directors, photographers, the So Johnny Carson of Japan (see Telemundo), busy intersections, oversections and tiny green cabs. At least Sofia Coppola still has her sanity. That is clear and not to be scoffed at. Try buying Greenaway's film on DVD.

Wait—we could start over. Lost In Translation: It's a decent film and it doesn't reek like Personal Velocity. Astute audiences will note the film takes place in modern day Tokyo (formerly Edo, established 16c). Cultural nuances well shown if at times with no clear purpose. Twenty seconds hopping on steps at the Daitoku-ji: four thousand dollars. Thirty seconds of flower arranging footage: six thousand dollars. Fifteen seconds at the Saiho-ji: two thousand dollars. Not having to use your brain while watching a nice little movie about nothing: priceless. I would like to simply accuse LIT of creeping Orientalism and be done with it. But the thing is Coppola truly has nothing against Japan. Her superficiality extends pleasantly to all she touches. The relationship between our little blonde girl and her photographer (was he even an actor?) husband was as thin—and satisfying—as a cream-colored wafer. Maybe if Coppola had inserted the beginning of Contempt as prologue, we could have cared about her troubled marriage. Maybe if she didn't see herself in young Scarlett Johanssen, she would have cast a more engaging actress. Bill Murray is acting even when he's not just like Al Pacino always tells the truth even when he lies. Why? Because he's old and has dark hair. Johanssen, on the other hand, has no history, no scars, no dark hair. She never killed nobody. She barely even has an ass! So who cares about her pink underwear? Don't get me wrong. Johansson is very pretty, but I can't decide if I should buy her a drink or some energy bars with ginko biloba.

I won't even mention the atrocious phone conversations between Bob (Murray) and his stale stateside wife. If the point was to show us why Bob would think about leaving his wife, shouldn't it also have shown us why he might not? Instead, we're given an empty-hearted caricature whom THIS man would never have married in the first place. Perhaps he just didn't want to leave his family? He still could have slept with Charlotte and her foot. But I guess Bob has suddenly become enlightened and is trying to do the right thing? But who said not sleeping with Charlotte is the right thing? I did not say that. Or maybe he's not not doing it for her? Maybe he has ED? Or VD? Maybe that's what he whispered in her ear that made her smile. "I was born, but..." Murray's character is obviously Coppola's reaction to her experience of growing up being hit on—or maybe not being hit on enough—by older Hollywood actors. The point is the whole thing just doesn't hold water. None of the characters had any inner struggle to explain their decisions or make us care about them as individuals or make us even think at all. Being half asleep does not count as inner struggle. Crotchety film snobs like myself get off on calling these manipulation, contrivance and weak Hollywood tripe.

Stylistically, the film's selling point is its serious jet lag melancholy and ennuic pacing. The restaurant scene after Bill's indiscretion was slow and sweet like a Maggie Cheung Tony Leung longing contest. And it definitely captured the 'morning after' 'what else is there to say?' 'Sunday homework' feeling. 'Sunday homework—ughh.' But all of this East meets digital video must have been done way better by a Jia Zhangke film I haven't seen yet called Xiao Wu. It's your fault I haven't seen this film. Not mine.

So what about the humor? Murray is as charming and witty as one could possibly expect considering he just joined the California Neo-Nazi movement. Yeah, how you like the film now? There's even a cameo by Not Cameron Diaz presumably to allow for some hot Hollywood satire. But if you are going to have satire, why ever deviate from Bunuel? Why be cheap when you could be oblique? Or if you must be a cheap window shade, then pull the string down and let it rip up. Lost's satire is unfortunately the fill-up-the-screen-waste-my-time variety—far from the maddening Being John Malkovich and nowhere near as punishing as the low blows of Ghost World. "We both have dogs. We both live in L.A." Yes, very funny. 'E' can do this. Speaking of Not Cameron Diaz, has anyone seen Chasing Amy? It sucks. Here's an example of Coppola's failure to actuate the signal. We're supposed to think our girl is smart while Not Cameron Diaz is Charlie's Angels dumb because she's going under Evelyn Waugh, a male author's pseudonym. But actually, it's pretty cool for a girl to use a guy's pseudonym like that. Never mind the real Cameran Diaz thinks Evelyn Waugh is a suitably priced hair product, or at least that's what she told Craig Kilborne's knee. Here, Sofia Coppola and friends have simply made an honest miscalculation. This sort of thing has cropped up before and it's always been due to human error. I prescribe Spirited Away.

~
 
More of Will Manuel's film reviews can be seen on www.coldbacon.com

Back to the top

~

Post your comments to the Arts Bulletin Board

About Us 9.11.01 Hardcopy Letters Writers Group Links + Staff Legal Statements

bottom_bar.gif (1435 bytes)