Talk:Lost in Translation (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no

	This article is within the scope 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 assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Japan To-do: edit purge Improve ASIMO Burakumin and Buraku Liberation League Takako Doi Chikamatsu Monzaemon Education in Japan Japanese architecture Japanese art Japanese robotics List of Emperors of Japan (transl. from ja) Emperor Yozei of Japan List of Japanese artists Namioka, Aomori Nihonjinron Sadako Ogata Ōishi Yoshio Okinawa (stub), Ryukyu Islands Politics of Japan Yagyu Shinkage-ryu Center Shiken (大学入試センター試験) More... Review First Sino-Japanese War Hinduism in Japan Inland Sea Kigo Narihira Santosen Temple Sazae-san Stroke order Heizo Takenaka Giovanni Battista Sidotti Requests See Requested articles Listed for deletion See this page, this page, and this page for lists. Grammar corrections Gaijin Takefuji Need images Every prefecture, see Subdivisions of Japan Sendai - Add demographic images More... Translate from Japanese Wikipedia Iemoto (家元) Blue Ribbon Award (Film) (ブルーリボン賞 (映画)) Gesaku (ja:戯作) More... Transliterations missing for Military ranks and insignia of the Japan Self-Defense Forces Wikify Ibaraki University Ikawa, Shizuoka Ima, Ai ni Yukimasu Japanese sculpture Mori Goro Sangaria (soft drink) Shaken Takefuji Vote: Watch this list — Edit this list

For relaxing times, make it Suntory time.

[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)

Just a little puzzled: supposed BBC analysis notwithstanding, both my husband and I clearly heard Murray's character tell Charlotte to "come to New York." Her "Okay" was uttered in response. Am I imagining this?68.72.106.45 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the clearest analogy to the whole movie is "Educating Rita." Older man (Michael Caine) meets younger woman (Julie Walters) -- different worlds -- unconsummated sexual chemistry -- locals (i.e., students and townies) who do not understand -- all the way to the hanging ending.Cross Reference (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed image

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)

Its more a case of the film leaving you thinking about the characters emotions than them, just getting it on in a hotel room. The ending especially touches those who have had to 'do the right thing' over what their emotions tell them to do --dixon75 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm lost too, the movie reminded me of "Mean Streets". I wouldn't call it boring, instead it was challenging as there was hardly a storyline or a plot. So I'm still wondering why it got an Academy Award for the script – otherwise it was so subtle and excellent I didn't notice.

I agree with the first comment here, the movie was lousy. Who wants to see Bill Murray (a comedian, by the way) looking depressed all the time? I have spent a few months in Japan and it was a very enriching experience. The people are friendly, the country is beautiful, and the food is great. Why would you care about the emotions of characters about whom you don't care anyway? Bill Murray's character is so one-dimensional (he is only unhappy all the time) that I actually disliked him. I love Bill Murray, by the way. When visiting another country, being open to their way of life is a good thing and it annoys me that a whole movie is about somebody who is just the opposite.

Fan of Lost in Translation: Hey guys, lets go see a depressing movie with little plot and an unsatisfying ending!

Me: Hey, why don't you go be lame by yourself.

24.124.100.53 (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)Evan

Emotional, character-driven movies rely on the viewer connecting with the characters on some level. This movie is almost entirely about what is going on between the lines in the characters' heads, so if you aren't able to connect with them or you outright find them objectionable, then of course you won't like it. It'd be impossible to. It isn't because the movie is poorly made but simply because it was unable to strike a chord with you; in the simplest of terms, you didn't "get" it, and there's nothing wrong with that because it can't be helped. Jorkusmalorkus (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (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)

I've just watched the film on TV and had a go at updating the synopsis. I was doing it as i watched the film and was stuggling to do both at the same time so there may be some errors in the plot and it may need tidying up in general. It hopefully covers the main points of the film though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.245.102 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

On the contrary, I think the synopsis is incredibly bloated and filled with uncited assertions and personal opinion. Unless there is substantial objections I'm going to chop much of it out - at least the opinionated sentences. Early Q 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've now condensed it enormously. While I agree there are many critical and beautiful scenes in the film not mentioned, we must remember what a synopsis is. Early Q 12:24, 3 July 2007 (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)

[edit] No screenplay

I heard somewhere that despite getting a screenplay oscar LIT actually didn't have a screenplay at all while shooting.. anyone know any more about this? M.C. Brown Shoes 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a screenplay. The draft I have is the September 2nd, 2002 draft, which is also the draft that circulates on screenplay sites (though, I have a physical copy through a friend with production ties). It's slightly different than the final film, but most screenplays are. Robixsmash 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Synopsis Neutrality

The Synopsis reads too much like a positive review, and not enough like an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps the positive analysis should be split into an "analysis" section, leaving the "synopsis" section to describe the actual plot. Sonicsuns 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That might be a start; much of the synopsis is bloated with opinions and assertions, as well unnecessary plot detail. Unless there are objections I'm going to begin by removing some of the opinions at least (actually incredibly large chunks of it). Early Q 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lost in Translation.jpg

Image:Lost in Translation.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Litdchat.png

Image:Litdchat.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CSM on Lost in Translation

Christian Science Monitor did a small article on Lost in Translation's release in Tokyo around 2004. While not stating that the film is racist, they do give the response of a critic and few individuals that say the film may be culturally bias. Not too much information here, but worth a look. 'Lost in Translation' doesn't translate well in Japan--Fang Teng (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Lost in Translation movie.jpg

Image:Lost in Translation movie.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I love this film very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.41.124.119 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Meaning of "Lost in Translation"

Something is lost in translation when a phrase or word being translated has a meaning beyond the dictionary definitions of the words. The section of this article that describes the scene in which a whiskey commercial is being shot is absolutely not an instance of anything being lost in translation. The interpreter is trying to expedite the process, and he gives only the important information to Bill Murray's character.

I would like someone to either tell me that they agree, or prove me wrong.

Thank you. 24.124.100.53 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Evan

[edit] Autobiographical elements

The preceding I have here archived from the article (after being tagged as "unsourced" since November 2007) given the chance reliable sources may be found to verify its material. 98.212.191.191 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Meaning of "Lost in Translation 2"

It is nice that someone changed the obviously incorrect reference to the meaning of the phrase "lost in translation". Unfortunately, it is still not an instance of something being lost in translation. An example would be a poem that is translated from one language to another; it will not have the same effect on the reader if it is not read in the original language. An interpreter who chooses to translate only a few words of what someone says in order to speed-up a process is not a demonstration of this idea. That whole section of the article should be removed since it is incorrect. Please engage me if you disagree.

66.45.156.90 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Evan

I disagree - I think that yours is a limited interpretation of the notion of lost in translation ... I would say that since the translator has chosen not to translate many of the words spoken by the director, that is still content lost through the process of translation. Have reinstated section removed earlier. --mervyn (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but indeed had the interpreter chosen to translate exactly what was said by the director, Bob would have understood it. A song being translated literally and not making sense in the new language is an example of the meaning of something being lost in translation. It would be wrong for someone to read that passage in this article and think that they know the meaning of "lost in translation" since nothing at all was lost in what the translator decided to translate. This section is not needed in this article since it is simply incorrect, and therefore will be removed.

65.214.102.163 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Evan

I still strongly disagree - the point is that the translator did NOT choose to translate exactly what was said by the director. "Lost in translation" can have many meanings -- often it is taken to convey the idea that subtlety and nuance are lost even if basic meaning is preserved -- you are only looking at one meaning. --mervyn (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What if I read a book that is written in English and then describe the book's meaning to you in my own words? Can I convey the full meaning of the book to you? No, I cannot. Have I translated anything? No, I have not. The situation described in the article happens very often between speakers of the same language. If that is true, how can that possibly be an instance of something being lost in translation? What you are thinking of should be called "lost in interpretation".

65.214.102.163 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Evan

You are really labouring a point and pushing your point of view here. All the quotation shows is that the translator fails to translate most of the director's direction to the actor. Ergo, lost in translation. --mervyn (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)