« Camp (B) | Main | The Good Girl (B) »
Lost In Translation (C+)
Interesting moments, but ultimately it has no depth. Mildly funny. Definitely not hilarious, as people have been raving.
Aimless. Yes, I know that's the point. But it's aimless and it has nothing important to say. Which makes it aimless and pointless.
It seems like Copolla wants to show character depth using the least amount of dialog possible. That works well for others (Jim Jarmusch) but in Copolla's case it's a thin disguise for having nothing to say and not knowing how to say it. She uses style and superficial conversations in an attempt to imply something deep, but never actually says anything deep.
Stylistically, it has its moments, but Virgin Suicides was a lot more interesting in that regard.
Bill Murray was okay, but definitely not Oscar worthy. The whole performance I was looking at Bill Murray, not his character, being bored and unchallenged. His performance in Rushmore was a real departure and the character completely came to life.
IMO, Giovanni Ribisi stole the show. His character and his acting had more depth, more intrigue and more substance than any others. I would have much rather seen a movie following his character.
It also had the interesting effect of de-glamorizing Tokyo for me. It made Tokyo seem a lot less appealing and a lot less mysterious than I have always imagined it to be.
I identified with a lot of the situations of being bored in the company of hipsters, including the Charlie Brown character and the Tokyo scenesters. And just like in real life, it made me think of all the other better things I could be doing with my time.
Acting: C
Direction: C
Editing: B
Script: C
Cinematography: B
Soundtrack: B+
February 12, 2004 in Art House, Comedy, Drama, Moody, Slow Paced | Permalink
Comments
I would rate is higher than you did. But the huge amount of praise this film has been getting seems to be one of those cases where there are so many crappy films that people forget the difference between a good film (LIT) and a great one (take "Hiroshima, Mon Amor" for example - a Europeon woman as tourist in Hiroshima who gets involved with a Japanese man). Maybe its because the hobbit religion has made many swallow that the LOTR films are the 'greatest films of all time.' So yeah, LIT is great too.
I don't buy what some people are saying that it's a racist film, but it does seem like some of the observations are a bit trite (those short Japanese really love video games and karaoke).
Your comment makes me pine for good old Jarmusch "Mystery Train" - Japanese tourists in Memphis are a bit more interesting than lonely American tourists in Japan.
I didn't really pick up on Ribisi. I thought the blonde woman who did the Cameron Diaz schtick was funny. But there was something about it which felt a bit cheap and mean. Also the way she nails the two biz dev dorks who talk to Bill Murray. And he screws the lounge singer but she is just a cheese ball who gets no lines. Along with the little yellow caricatures of Japanese, it adds up to a low level meanness that the film doesn't really need. Basically everyone in the film but our "lovers" are either alien or too lame to take seriously.
There was that one conversation on the bed, where she asks "does it get any easier." And then he says "kids change everything." Are these uber cliches intentional (people do sometimes talk in cliches) or are they supposed to be deep?
It's an interesting film from a woman's point of view. Because we have the typical older man younger woman thing, but there is no sex. Even though this is an "adult" film in terms of relationships and tone, there can be no sex. Because a young woman would fantasize about being romanced by Bill Murray - laughing with him, hugging him, sprawled on a bed talking late into the night - but not having his old breasts flop near her face.
It also fits into our odd, desexualized culture, where sexiness is 15 year old girls in school girl outfits, breast flashing at the Super Bowl or millionaires giving head in nightvision. But never lonely people meeting, talking, exploring their lust and parting ways. (See Claire Denis' "Friday Night"). I guess hobbits don't screw.
Posted by: wayne at Feb 12, 2004 5:07:47 PM
Wow. I agree all around. Every single point you make were things I wanted to write up. Which makes me wonder why you would rate it higher, considering all of those serious flaws?
Posted by: Philip Fierlinger at Feb 15, 2004 9:09:03 PM
Perhaps I'm also swayed by the 'comparing it to other recent films' effect. Just to see this -type- of film in theatres (crowded theatres too) is a good thing. And it's fighting the good fight, even if it doesn't rate with those other films I mentioned.
I'm older now I guess. If a film can make me pine for the glory days of Jarmusch in the 80s, well it's fine and good. I'd rather follow that slightly positive feeling than dwell on the fact that this film is probably the best our generation is going to get. The generation that thinks Donnie Darko is a "great" film.
It was entertaining to watch, it wasn't "deep" but it wasn't trying to be (I dont think). I didn't feel emotionally involved like everyone else who saw it did, but I -liked- it enough to smile at some of the "nice" scenes.
Posted by: wayne at Feb 18, 2004 11:35:03 PM
