Talk:Lost in Translation (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is part of WikiProject Films, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to films and film characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Unknown
This article has not been rated on the importance assessment scale.
Editing Guidelines
Lost in Translation (film) is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Japan To-do:

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

Contents

[edit] 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, the little old lady and doctor in the hospital scenes, and the Daikanyama sushi chef. 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 Bob an anecdote about surfing - the strip-club scenes were shot in one of his shops), Hiromix who is an extremely well known photographer and filmmaker (polaroids with Charlotte, dancing with Bob, appears at the end of the credits), DJ/Head Porter designer Hiroshi Fujiwara, 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 Bob, 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)

I think that most Westerners who've lived in Japan, and Japanese people themselves, will know that the Japanese characters in the film aren't stereotyped at all. And they're not mocked or made to look stupid because of their "cultural characteristics". Anybody who thinks that is themself stereotyping the Japanese, and probably knows little about them.--MackORell 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 tawdry 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)

Great commentary! As it seems to be original, it probably doesn't belong in the article space, but I would leave it here, and maybe seek advice from an administrator. Slowmover 18:03, 28 February 2006 (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)
That's a powerful scene, but I think you got it backwards :-) I just watched it, and Charlotte doesn't whisper anything to Bob Harris... the only thing she says is a clearly audible "okay". It's Bob who whispers to Charlotte. Random trivia: the Spanish dub from the Region 4 DVD managed to butcher this scene by dubbing a non-existing line over Bob's whisper, something like "let me tell something... I'll never forget you." I hate dubs. Andran 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think WKW's influence on this film is pretty significant. I saw many similarities with Wong's works, where recurring themes of loneliness and alienation are intermixed with the characters in the films.Lasersharp 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
On 15 October, 2006, an installment of The Culture Show was broadcast with an interview of Sofia Coppola, who claimed that the whispered line was a culmination of dialogue she had provided and dialogue Bill Murray came up with himself. According to presenter Lauren Laverne, the BBC had analysed the line and discovered that he seems to say "I love you, don't forget to tell the truth." I think this should be mentioned in the article but I don't know where. --84.66.75.130 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. 86.20.148.184 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

Image:Lost in Translation still 2.jpg
Charlotte (Johansson) and Bob (Bill Murray) meet in their hotel lounge

I removed this image because I felt it was redundant and cluttered the article -- jiy 09:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV?!

However, it should be noted that in reality, Japanese are more accepting of American culture, while most Americans hold the ethnocentric viewpoint that Japanese culture is strange and therefore mock Japanese frequently for comedy.

Yeah, that just screams "fact"....except wait, no it doesn't. You want to site a source for this? Or is this just random anti-American bias? I've lived in the US, Japan, and Germany and I really don't see anything that would suggest that "most Americans" hold an ethnocentric viewpoint. I would say it's pretty similiar in Japan, a lot of the older Japanese and Americans are much more ethnocentric than the younger ones.

  • I just added the NPOV tag here. Multiple anonymous editors keep changing the text here, removing and adding back similar statements, without backup, regarding Japanese diet, average height, and so forth. I think all this stuff has to go, or be moved to the talk page, to return the article to a more encyclopedic tone. Also, the new and very interesting section which translates the Suntory Time scene is very long and should, I think, be moved elsewhere. Slowmover 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the film could possibly be racist or biased against Japanese. The film touches on what any American would probably think if they were to go to Japan for the first time. The film is not trying to make fun of Japanese, but instead use the stark differences as a back drop for the main characters. I don't think it is prudent to ruin this otherwise good article with political correctness. Any perceived biases should be left to the reader when he/she watches the film.

[edit] Now for a comment not involved with NPOV

The translation of scenes section seems a little bit odd, especially without the original Japanese which its translating. Should we move it to Wikiquotes or add the Japanese to it? At the very least, there should be, I think, the Japanese for a bit of context. ZanderSchubert 07:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I question whether or not the scene translation is necessary in the first place. Though it does arguably support the thesis of the film, it seems to me as if it might infringe on copyright in some way.
If the section is to be kept, it might simply be better to move it to Wikiquote and link it. Adding Japanese for context makes sense, but seems to be pointless, as most readers would not be able to read it. The Japanese, in that case, would simply be extraneous. Ourai 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think it would infringe copyright; in the US it would be covered by fair use, in the UK I'm not so sure, but I would imagine the same rules would apply as when quoting academic material; reference it and you're fine. --User24 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 24.200.34.195 and Trivia Point 3

Recently, 24.200.34.195 posted a comment on Trivia Point 3, which states that a character is modelled after the director's father. The comment was essentially a question posed to the statement itself: who was based off Sofia Coppola's father? Unless a name can be ascribed to the character in question--and verified, at that--the entire point should be removed outright. Ourai 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that there should be a source for the point, it is pretty obvious that the character in question is Bob. I'll do some searching and see if I can verify it. --ChinaNailStorm 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Whoops, I didn't see that the point had been changed to accomodate the fact there is no source. --ChinaNailStorm 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Lost

Why did this film get all that, it was boring. --66.218.17.115 04:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, some people think otherwise. --Mark Nez 19:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, plotwise, there's hardly any movie at all. The young wife of a photographer meets an aging actor in Tokyo. They hang out together but don't have sex.
Try thinking about what the film's title means? --Uncle Ed 15:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis is incomplete!!

The story has many more important scenes which aren't even mentioned here. It seems here that the plot ends at the karaoke scene (I would've thought that if I hadn't seen the movie!), which is actually not even halfway through! It would be great if someone wrote the ENTIRE synposis for people to understand everything that happens. I'd do it if I was able to remember the order of all scenes from the movie well enough to describe them. So, thanks to anyone else in advance. Kreachure 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was incomplete too, but I don't know if I could capture the essence of the key moments; one of the perfect things about this film is the way that each scene holds different importance to different people, it's a much a film about the viewer as the story. --User24 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stereotypes

Cut:

Some have strongly criticised the movie for what is perceived to be a stereotyped and unsympathetic portrayal of Japanese culture. Occasionally Japanese characters serve as comic relief and some of the humor is at their expense based on common Japanese stereotypes, such as their mispronouncing English or their relatively short stature. In the film's defence, Peter Sattler, in a letter to movie critic David Edelstein of Slate, wrote that "the feelings of strangeness are entirely in the American characters. The camera records beauties—cultural and natural—that the 'lost' visitors are unable to register or understand ... In the movie, Japanese culture estranges you from American culture—makes American culture look strange and dubbed, as much as the other way around." According to proponents of the film, it should be understood that the "alien" landscape of Tokyo serves largely to illustrate the alienation the main characters experience, a feeling that persists not because they are in a foreign land, but because they are human. Critics say that the alienation could have been done without scenes of stereotypes that mock Japanese culture.

I'm puzzled by this passage. Do these unnamed critics say that Japanese aren't shorter than Westerners or that they don't mispronounce English?

I saw the movie twice: once in a theatre, and then again on DVD (using rewind to study certain scenes). I found nothing "unsympathetic" about its portrayal of Japanese people as shorter than Americans, or about their more compact use of space.

There's a scene where a photographer speaks at length in Japanese to Bill Murray's character, and the translator summarizes the remarks tersely. This rings true, and I don't see how this is unsympathetic. Actually, I thought the translator did an excellent job, as Motoko Rich's transcript in 'Trivia' shows.

I didn't delete this passage, however, because I invite others to expand on this issue. Who are these critics? What are their objections and reasons? --Uncle Ed 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Considering the unique perspective of this film, I was surprised to see it got such a general, generic treatment here on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't know where to look for citable reactions - film magazines, contemporary Japanese culture academic journals, etc - but I think this is far more than simply a nice film with a story. It addresses a lot of issues of culture, etc, and I'm sure there must be more that can be written. I could sit and write a whole essay on it right now, but as Wikipedia frowns on original research (and I agree for the most part with that), we need to find citations of more "official" responses. LordAmeth 08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/o/s/Talk%7ELost_in_Translation_%28film%29_a921.html"