Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 43

Thread: Lost in limbo

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    Can't Have It Both Ways

    I don't think one can consistently use statements that:

    1) Some Japanese don't like the movie and then at the same time,

    2) It's not a Japanese movie.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Why on earth not? I don't see the contradiction. It's certainly not a Japanese movie. It was made by Americans and stars American actors. And of course some Japanese don't like it. I don't get your point. This is not having anything both ways.

    The opposite would be ridiculous: that all Japanese like it and that it's a Japanese movie.

    Am I missing something here? Are we through the looking glass?


    www.chrisknipp.com
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 11-21-2003 at 01:51 AM.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    To Be Japanese or Not Japanese That Is The Question

    On the one hand you say that you "have Japanese friends who saw it and didn't think much of it, and like me found the treatment of the Japanese dismissive" and then you say that "but I think you're forgetting here that this is an American movie. Sofia Coppola is not a Japanese director...This is beginning to sound more and more like the Emperor's Clothes to me. Let's not give her too much credit for what is not there. Understated, sure. To a fault. Not a Japanese movie. We're not discussing Ozu here!"

    So it appears to me that you are criticizing the film for both being "not Japanese" and then argue that of course the movie isn't Japanese but American and criticizing her "being American" because of course she can't be Japanese and be able to capture the Japanese idea of nothingness. So that means that Americans can't understand Japanese culture and we can't attribute to Soifa Coppola what's not in the film because she's not Japanese. Sounds abit close to casting a big net over who and who is not able to capture cultural nuances.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    In the one case I was making a statement about the movie; in the other I was responding to things you said.. You yourself initially thought this movie was dense about Japan, and you were unmoved by it. You seem to have been influenced by relatives you resaw it with to alter your opinion. One can be mistaken about a movie; but I think one needs also to trust one's gut reaction.

    I have to repeat, that I think this is in many ways an excellent film. But it is wan and thin emotionally and in plot content. And its treatment of the Japanese is generally dismissive and superficial. Look at the ad director. He's a blustering ninny. The verbosity of Japanese is made fun of. The title is "Lost in Translation." There is a sense that these people, isolated in the artificial environment of a dark, airless luxury hotel, are "lost," cut off from their own culture, from their own lives, and from the culture, whatever it is, of the country in which they are temporarily stranded (he wants to escape, and take her with him).

    Murray's performance is remarkable in its subtle, witty recessiveness. The direction is sophisticated. But it is cool and somewhat superficial in its stategies.

    The TV emcee is a a fussy, irritating, effeminate fool. We aren't meant to understand his blathering. There's not even any translation to be lost in, in his case.

    I can see no contradiction in my statements. But I have to keep reiterating, though I have more reservations than many of those who've raved about this movie, I have recognized all along that it's accomplished and original and that Sofia Coppola is a promising new young director. It may not wind up on my own personal list of the year's best from the US, but I certainly won't sqawk in surprise at its being on other lists. It's a bit overrated, but not in a class with some of the most overrated of previous years. It slightly disappoints me. It doesn't outrage me.
    Last edited by Chris Knipp; 11-22-2003 at 11:37 AM.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    Have You See This Movie Twice?

    Unless somebody has seen this movie twice, it would be difficult to really comment on comments about my second time movie experience and my gut response to it the second time. I don't think my mother's experience had must to do with influencing my reaction to the film the second time since she remained quiet except for the laughter that both she and the rest of the audience audibly made throughout the movie and sat over on the otherside of my wife. But it really was my surprise that I wasn't bored with this movie the second time around and my picking up more sensations and feelings this time around that didn't register the first time. I can only say that there appears to me more depth to this movie than at first glance.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840

    It's not really a question of how often but how closely one views a movie

    It is true that I cannot comment on your second-time viewing experience, still less on your mother's viewing experience. I can't really comment on your viewing experiences at all; I can only comment on my own viewing experience, which, however, I firmly trust. I did not fail to see depth in the movie and it did not at any point bore me. I refer you to my review of it which is posted on this website. You are mistaken in thinking that I am questioning your own reactions, about which I cannot comment. You seem offended by the fact that although you reversed your opinion of the movie's approach to Japan, I haven't reversed my thoughts about that. We have to agree to disagree, and I don't feel confused about what I think at all, or likely to modify, only strengthen, my first-time impressions of the movie if I see it again. I'm sure I'd see more. One always sees more, if there's anything to see. But I don't think that I'd reverse my views. I think they were quite moderate and fair to begin with. My opinion wasn't dismissive as yours was initially:

    If this movie's audience had been directed towards tourists or business people who didn't have an clear cut agenda in going to Japan or for people who wanted a slice of "real" life as an outsider or for people interested on non-drama of the relationship of two people in a strange country than this is the perfect movie. This movie has no real drama, no real message...
    Although my reivew wasn't a rave, compared to many, I was much kinder to it than that.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    4,843

    Re: Have You See This Movie Twice?

    Originally posted by tabuno
    it would be difficult to really comment on comments about my second time movie experience

    I believe your take on this film is utterly valid. My guess is that you are a flexible individual, open to new experience because your present responses are not dictated by old perceptions.

    I like to test films I loved and films others loved but I didn't, by watching them again. There are many circumstances and viewing conditions that often impact appraisal. There are films that I've been unable to penetrate or grasp on first viewing. Some of these have become favorites of mine.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    I agree with you, Oscar, of course. I hope you're not suggesting that I'm being rigid here. I too am a "flexible individual." My views of movies do change--either way; I may like them better, they may lose their magic, or I may just see more that I missed the first time.

    Let me point out that the quote from tabuno that you start with, "it would be difficult to really comment on comments about my second time movie experience" is something I confirmed: "It is true , I said, that I cannot comment on your second-time viewing experience, still less on your mother's viewing experience.". I wouldn't question his changed opinion, only the likelihood of my doing an about-face on my so moderate views -- at this time.

    This is because in the case of Lost in Translation I'm simply saying that having thought about it a lot, discussed it a lot, and formulated my ideas about it in a carefully written review, I'm very doubtful that re-seeing it -- now anyway -- would make me change my evaulation -- which, anyway, was very moderate and balanced, in my view. I praised it pretty highly, but with some reservations. How that could change now is beyond me. Maybe in six months or six years it would look quite different to me: but it might look better or it might look worse. I maintain that it can go either way. It's not a sure thing that seeing a movie more times will mean liking it more, though if one already liked it quite a lot, one's appreciation may very well deepen.

    It would be irresponsible of me to publish a review of a movie in which I expressed views I hadn't deeply considered or worked out, or that I was likely to reverse a week later.

    I was tremendously impressed by certain films at one time which have lost their magic. An example is Rene Clement's Forbidden Games (Jeux interdits, 1952). When I saw it again ten or fifteen years later, I didn't feel anything any more. Bonnie and Clyde was devastating to me at the time; less so now. Easy Rider had a shocking impact; now it seems superficial and gimmicky. Maybe if tabuno sees Lost in Translation again in five years, by himself, he'll find it's losing interest again. There are films that are exactly the right thing for the public at the time. Then they date. It's not a sure thing to assume that re-seeing movies is an ever-growing joy. Sometimes it can be very disenchanting.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    Chris Knipp Extends Discussion

    It's really nice to have somebody who really cares about film. He can continue a dialogue and not close down unlike many people on other sites. Many of his comments about the movie are insightful. It's really enjoyable to actually be able to discuss movie stuff not fluff.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    Thanks for taking my response in such a positive way. The site is all about discussion. It's a shame when anybody's response causes the debate to shut down and I don't like that to happen.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    442
    Originally posted by Chris Knipp

    This may be in part a generational thing, as you suggest. You may be particularly hard on Coppola because she is closer to your generation, and you expect better.

    Your reaction seems a bit overboard against, but is valuable as a corrective since not only the critics but most people I know here in the Bay Area can see no wrong in this movie, which I agree is really pretty empty.
    I would agree with much of this. I am hard on her as someone of my generation. But to be honest, I dont think we should expect less of her because shes 28. I mean she has every resource available to her that a filmmaker could want and still comes up short, atleast in my estimation. I would point to someone like Wes Anderson who directed a brilliant Bottle Rocket at a younger 26 with none of the resources and 100 times the results. In any case, I do hope she improves, but overly generous critical response (again, in my estimation) would seem like a hinderance to much needed growth. Perhaps Im just a meany :>

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    Yeah Meany

    Meanie :)

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    15,840
    I should have also mentioned, pmw, that you're harder on her not only because of your generational closeness to her but because she's Francis Coppola's daughter! She's bound to get a hard time from some people for that.

    Again, I still think your strong stand against the movie is a useful corrective. But I find more and more people I know -- everybody seems to see it eventually -- have begun to say that it's a bit empty, that something is lacking.

    I hope this discussion helps more people to see that rating a movie is really a very complex thing. Numbers from one to ten really are a waste of time when it comes to fully evaluating those complexities.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Ottawa Canada
    Posts
    5,656
    Originally posted by pmw
    I dont think we should expect less of her because shes 28. I mean she has every resource available to her that a filmmaker could want and still comes up short, atleast in my estimation. [/B]

    I agree, and you're not being mean, p.

    Give ME those resources, Francis! Sofia is a lucky brat, and while I'm glad she's making a dent, she has a lot to live up to with that name....she is indeed falling short of her potential considering her pedigree.

    Where is Vivian Kubrick? I'm gonna write to her. She could dethrone Sofia in short order. Did you know Viv shut down Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark production for weeks because Steve didn't give a fuck about the way the snakes were treated?

    It's true.

    She was asked to document the shooting of "Raiders" like she did on Stanley's The Shining.
    Last edited by Johann; 11-27-2003 at 01:39 PM.
    "Set the controls for the heart of the Sun" - Pink Floyd

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Utah, USA
    Posts
    1,650

    A Fair Comparison?

    I don't think it's fair to make comparisons on movie quality based on father/daughter relations. I would I hope that some other basis would be used because frankly the whole parent/child comparison is unfair and hopefully invalid because the influence of the parent when it comes to artistic endeavors by the time one is an adult would amount to something much different than before.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •