Talk:Lost in Translation (film)
 | Film Unassessed | ||||||
| |||||||
For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.
Perceived Racism
I tried to explain the "racism" in the film a little bit, as I felt the article did not adequately address these claims. To understate the argument against the film felt like a POV way to dismiss those claims. More could still be said. --Feitclub 23:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
- We shouldn't forget the Japanese friends of Charlotte in the karaoke scene. Not all the locals in the film are the butts of jokes.Tarnas 02:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Agreed - I noted the distinction between the "real" Tokyo citizens, and those in the artificial worlds of the hotel and the media business that Bob was "lost" in. It was as if the stress of extended dealings with the Westerners was exaggerating their apparent quirks. -- Stereoroid 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, there are only two doubtful (potentially racist) scenes in Lost in Translation. One involves Bob Harris having to duck down in the shower, when it is obvious that the shower-head could be raised to a greater height. The other is the scene with the "premium fantasy" prostitute. This is very unrealistic scene. Apart from that, negative portrayals of Japanese in the film fall within the scope of realistic satire rather than racist stereotype, in the same way that Kelly is a satirical portrayal of a Hollywood starlet, John is a superficial indie hipster, and Lydia is a materialistic Beverly Hills housewife. Middle-aged Japanese men do tend to be short, election campaigning in Japan really is that bizarre, business duties are often needlessly onerous and laden with excessive (to Westerners) politeness. They do use Western clichés (the Rat Pack, James Bond, etc.) with their own Japanese "cultural grammar," which can result in absurdities when viewed through Western eyes. Discussion of confusion of "R" and "L" is very realistic as jokey banter among expats, and in the farewell between Bob and Charlotte in the Hotel the joke is portrayed as awkward and uncomfortable ("aren't you going to wish me a good fright?").
It is disturbing that some have criticized the portrayal of characters such as Charlie Brown, Mathew Minami, and the little old lady and doctor in the hospital scenes. These people are simply playing themselves, except for Minami (Takashi Fujii), who plays that character on Japanese television. To call these characters racist is, ironically, racist in itself.
Sophia Coppola is very familiar with Japan. She runs a clothing label there, Milk Fed (one distributor of the range, Nao Kitman, appears in the movie). The parts with Charlotte's friends, far from being a negative stereotype, represent a kind of unattainable paradise for any foreigner with an interest in the Tokyo party scene. Participants include Nobuhiko Kitamura from fashion house Hysteric Glamour (who tells Harris an anecdote about surfing), Hiromix who is an extremely well known photographer and filmmaker (polaroids with Charlotte, dancing with Bob, appears at the end of the credits), Nigo from fashion house A Bathing Ape, well-known DJ Kunichi Nomura, and editor of Dune magazine Fumihiro Hayashi (who plays Charlie Brown, which is his real-life nickname - and he sang "Anarchy in the UK" when socializing with Coppola before the film was even written). Apart from Charlotte (and perhaps Harris, depending on one's point of view), these are the only non-satirical characters in the film, whether Japanese or American, and their inclusion blows out of the water the typical politically-correct "token ethnics" that Hollywood usually throws in to "balance out" movies. To view these real people as racist stereotypes is itself extremely racist. -- Scribelrus 09:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Film influences
I think Lost in Translation bears a striking resemblance to Roman Holiday, and I wrote the following about the comparison, though I wasn't sure if these comments would fit nicely into the article. It's way too long as it is anyway.
Influences
The characters, plot, and setting of the film are extremely similar to that of William Wyler's Roman Holiday (1953), Audrey Hepburn's first film. Roman Holiday is set in Rome, and Hepburn, an English-speaking princess visiting the city on a diplomatic tour, becomes frustrated with her daily regimen and wants to break out and see Rome like a normal person. She ends up meeting Gregory Peck, an expatriot American reporter who realizes just who Hepburn is, and sets about a day on the town with her, keeping secret his job as a reporter and feigning to not know that Hepburn is a princess. However, the two fall for each other by the end of the day, and after parting sadly, Peck decides not to use their day together as a story. He shows up for a press meeting with the princess the next day to give her the photographs his friend had clandestinely taken of them on their romp through the city, and makes a gift of his silence to her (she was reported to be sick in bed, Peck had a real story on his hands!), and she graciously and enchantingly accepts.
The element of fleeting companionship in a foreign cityscape, along with the theme of age difference and the eventual outcome of the tenuous romances, are all common to both films. The differences in Coppola's rendition are telling, however: in 1953, Wyler's focus was less on age difference and more on class difference (pristine European princess versus gruff American beat-writer), and the background was not of high technology and alien culture but of a simple, heart-warming hinterland still in the minds of first- and second-generation American immigant audiences. Coppola focuses on the age difference and marital malaise of her characters, and uses the setting to convey a feeling of alienation and stolen moments.
The endings of both films are most revealing: Wyler decided to have Hepburn and Peck fall for each other in two successive scenes, and then he spent several more scenes sorting out how Peck could somehow salvage his relationship with this princess. After meeting face to face as princess and reporter, the final scene shows Peck walking out of the press hall alone with the camera trained beyond him on the place where Hepburn had been standing. The tense long walk out of the movie highlights how Hepburn might, just maybe, come back out running into Peck's arms... yet she doesn't. Coppola, on the other hand, chooses to have Bob's passion for Charlotte lose its way, he sleeps with the taudry hotel singer with whom he shares no love, and the two main characters are left to split up half-heartedly. Only in the last possible moment of the movie, when Bob and Charlotte have walked away from each other totally unsatisfied, does Bob suddenly seek out Charlotte and they finally kiss, their passion for each other no longer complicated and totally communicated. Wyler reserved that last possible moment to break off the hope of a continued communion between Hepburn and Peck, while Coppola chooses the final moment to amplify her characters' communion. Tarnas 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Does anyone agree that the ending has a familiar air to that of 'In the Mood for Love' by Wong Kar-Wai. I am of course referring to the whole 'whisper' device, where Charlotte whispers something to Bob Harris, but we never hear what. I took this as her telling him what she wanted, but not acting upon these impulses. Her thoughts and feelings being out in the open, so they no longer consume her and she can happily get on with her life. Similarly, in 'In the Mood for Love', Chow Mo-Wan traps his thoughts and feelings in a crack in a wall, and then covers it over with earth, for what I erceive to be the same reasons. I know Sofia Coppola in her Oscars speech, when she won an award for best screenplay, thanked a few directors including Wong Kar-Wai. I am not saying there is anything wrong with regurgitating ideas in a different form, just wondering what people thought about it. Twalton 09:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Removed image
I removed this image because I felt it was redundant and cluttered the article -- jiy 09:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)