I dont know. This past year was just so boring when it came to nominations and awards. LOTR was the obvious front-runner...and it assured itself an obvious win. And Billy Crystal wasnt even that funny....

~Eccentro

The people who would win were obvious (even Entertainment Weekly predicted perfectly!), but I didn't think the movies themselves were boring; Lost in Translation, in particular, was absolutely fantastic.

Yes, Lost in Translation was amazing. I was a little surprised that Bill Murray pouted so much when he didn't win for Best Actor. I'm actually getting less and less interested in the ceremony in general. The last big upset that I remember was Shakespeare in Love beating Saving Private Ryan for Best Pic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vykromond:
The people who would win were obvious (even Entertainment Weekly predicted perfectly!), but I didn't think the movies themselves were boring; _Lost in Translation_, in particular, was absolutely fantastic.

---

Yes, I loved that film. But, it just seemed that the majority of the public didnt "get" it, saying it was too slow; too boring.

~Eccentro

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EccentricSam,

It was pretty lame, but I find it to be that way almost every year. Lost in Translation was a good movie but I had difficulty with it as I have seen the script that an associate of mine swears she(Coppola)ripped off from him. Right down to the whisper in the ear, it's in his script! Anyways, I guess he can be proud that she thanked the people who helped to get her back on track when she was stuck a couple of pages in, in her Oscar speech! Damn good script!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Smenkharon:
It was pretty lame, but I find it to be that way almost every year. Lost in Translation was a good movie but I had difficulty with it as I have seen the script that an associate of mine swears she(Coppola)ripped off from him. Right down to the whisper in the ear, it's in his script! Anyways, I guess he can be proud that she thanked the people who helped to get her back on track when she was stuck a couple of pages in, in her Oscar speech! Damn good script!

---

Does he have proof? He could probably sue if he did.

He does, but doesn't want to get involved in a lawsuit. He moved to Canada to get away from that type of mentality. I'd sue if it was me.

Please, explain to me what made Lost in Translation so great. Someone stated that the majority of the people didn't "get it". All I have to ask is, what is there to get? It's not all that complicated. This reminds me of a situation a few years ago when a classmate of mine was raving about Crouching Tiger, and then asked me what my opinion was. When I replied with a "it was enjoyable" she then asked "well did you get it?" What the hell is she talking about? What is there to get? It's not some kind of inside joke or anything. I felt like throwing a brick at her face.

So back to Lost in Translation. Is it the jokes you are referring to that we, as in the "majority", do not get? The plot? The language? Seriously, the "did you get it" question just doesn't seem relevant at all. Personally, i didn't think the movie was that great. Bill Murray was being Bill Murray, and Scarlett didn't really have to do anything in the movie except shed some tears and wear pink underwear (much like her performance in Girl With the Pearl Earring where she said virtually nothing, except the pink underwear is replaced with a pearl earring).

I'm sorry to have to rant like this, but i'm pretty sick of how people say the movie is great and then don't give any reasons. All they do is claim that no one else gets it because everyone else in the world is intellectually inferior.

Please stop making terrible assumptions about the human race. Assumptions mean nothing. I want to hear some reasons damn it.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Please, explain to me what made Lost in Translation so great. Someone stated that the majority of the people didn't "get it". All I have to ask is, what is there to get? It's not all that complicated. This reminds me of a situation a few years ago when a classmate of mine was raving about Crouching Tiger, and then asked me what my opinion was. When I replied with a "it was enjoyable" she then asked "well did you get it?" What the hell is she talking about? What is there to get? It's not some kind of inside joke or anything. I felt like throwing a brick at her face.

So back to Lost in Translation. Is it the jokes you are referring to that we, as in the "majority", do not get? The plot? The language? Seriously, the "did you get it" question just doesn't seem relevant at all. Personally, i didn't think the movie was that great. Bill Murray was being Bill Murray, and Scarlett didn't really have to do anything in the movie except shed some tears and wear pink underwear (much like her performance in Girl With the Pearl Earring where she said virtually nothing, except the pink underwear is replaced with a pearl earring).

I'm sorry to have to rant like this, but i'm pretty sick of how people say the movie is great and then don't give any reasons. All they do is claim that no one else gets it because everyone else in the world is intellectually inferior.

Please stop making terrible assumptions about the human race. Assumptions mean nothing. I want to hear some reasons damn it.

_K-Dog_

---

Ah yes, I was not making an assumption i was basing my statement on critiques I have heard from my various friends. They said that "LiT" was both slow and boring as well as just un-interesting. I respect all of your opinions, but I can not see how this film is boring. Slow, yes; boring, no.

You made the claim that Scarlett Johansson (sp?) had nothing to say. OK, what's your point? Reciting dialogue is not the only thing that makes or breaks a performance. It is all about how to express the character's feelings using your body--face, hands, etc.

Yes, Bill Murray WAS playing Bill Murray. But, the character he plays is very similair to Bill's own career.

So you didnt like the movie. No big deal. Though, the remarks you made concerning the acting abilities of Scarlett and Bill make me come to believe that you just didnt "get" the movie, but that's not what I'm saying at all.

OK, maybe thats exactly what I'm saying.

Uh oh, let the battle begin...

Ok first off, you didn't answer my initial question. By all means say what you like, but by explaining what you think the movie is attempting to say will allow me to understand where you're coming from. So please, if you don't mind, explain what it is that people such as myself don't "get".

Next, pertaining to your defense of Bill Murray and Scarlett, I will fully agree with your statement of how movement and expression are more than half the battle of acting, however, i never said it wasn't in the first place. Anyway, to continue my accusation that both Bill and Scarlett didn't have to do much acting, I will point out that they were simply being themselves. The performances should be credited more to the casting managers rather than the actors. There was nothing in the performances that the actors had to create. They were already the characters that they had to portray. Take for example Anthony Hopkins as the infamous Hannibal Lechter in Silence of the Lambs. That is what excellent Oscar worthy acting is. Hopkins actually had to create that character. Bill and Scarlett simply played Bill and Scarlett. There was no creative process involved.

Thus I stick to my claim that there was little or no acting present in Lost in Translation. Sure, they portrayed the characters pretty well, but they didn't do any acting to accomplish it.

Oh yeah, before I end my rant, I just want to say that I never once questioned Bill and Scarlett's acting abilities. I simply said that they didn't have to do sh*t in Lost and Translation.

So when you reply to this argument, don't put words in my mouth.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Please, explain to me what made Lost in Translation so great. Someone stated that the majority of the people didn't "get it". All I have to ask is, what is there to get?

---

I'll try. Here's what I wrote about it when I put it as my #1 film for last year:

"The critical acclaim for this film is more than earned- I would be appalled if it were absent [ . . . ] Starring alongside [BM and SJ] is emptiness: often, Sofia Coppolla lets the camera film lengthy stretches of silence and inaction, perfectly conveying sleeplessness in an alien atmosphere. Silence lurks in every frame; even when a drunk Murray karaokes with some of his Japanese friends as Johannsson laughs along, there is an indelible feeling that the characters are just making noise to fill the space between them and each other, between them and their environment. The jet-lagged sludge of half-awareness and dissociation is punctuated by moments of piercing humour, emotion, and humanity that are all the more affecting for their surroundings. Lost in Translation portrays- perfectly, I believe- the chasms that are torn between people and the fleeting moments when those chasms are penetrated and souls, rather than mouths, communicate."

Well, thank you "V" for giving me some kind of explanation. You are indeed the first person I've spoken to that actually gave me some reasons for why the movie deserves such credit, rather than simply saying "How do you not get it?".

However, though I enjoyed reading your more than poetic description of the film, unfortunately I am still left with no answer for the question that you've quoted. You've decribed the film's cinematic elements and it's general message while using a lot of unneccessary bullsh*t in the process. The key phrase here is "general message". The message that you are attempting to "explain" to me is probably what's written on the back of the DVD in two simple sentences.

What you've provided me with here is an example of how you have exemplary writing skills and a keen eye for descriptive words. However, i don't think I asked for any of that in the question that you've quoted.

Please, if you're going to respond to a question, don't use it as time to showcase how educated you are, just answer the freakin question.

Just to demonstrate, here's how to begin answering my question:

"What most people don't get about Lost in Translation is..."

I'm sorry if I sound like a wise-ass but i think it's neccessary to say this just so that I don't end up puking blood all over my keyboard when I read another response that doesn't answer my question.

K-Dog

This message has been edited. Last edited by: K-Dog,

K-Dog, I am at a loss of words...

...I believe Vykromond did an exceptional job of answering your questions. Instead of replying in a fit of jealousy (jealous because you do not possess the writing skills that, V, here, obviously has), how about just own up to the fact that we like "Lost in Translation" and you, for whatever reason, do not. Why do we like this film? Well, I'll happily refer you to Vykromond's post.

Your question, "what is there to get?", is answered in V 's post. Sure, it isnt written formulaicly, but you should get the point...

...Now that I have re-read all the posts I think this pointless argument came about because I mispoke. I should have continued the sentence with

"the majority of the public didnt get the humor. Their criticism--it was too slow; too boring."

My response to "their criticism"-

The movie was intimate. It portrayed life realistically. As Mr. V said, the "jet-lagged sludge of half-awareness and dissociation is punctuated by moments of piercing humor, emotion, and humanity."

So, Mr. Dog, sir, you dont like personal, intimate, realistic films. Fine withe me. Just dont come into a discussion about "Lost in Translation" all pissed off, ready to raise hell at the implication that you are intellectually inferior.

That isnt appropriate. Not here anyway.

I could happily redirect you to the "Van Helsing" board where you can talk about the proper response to the question "what is there to get?" all you want.

Yours Truly,

Eccentro

Ah, Eccentro my old friend. Always so quick to make assumptions. I guess you haven't been reading what I've been saying afterall.

Let me just point out first that you have made ridiculous accusations pertaining to my taste in movies as well as my personality. To quote you:

"So, Mr. Dog, sir, you don't like personal, intimate, realistic films."

That's the accusation against my taste in movies.
Then you say that I am "jealous because [I] do not possess the writing skills that, V, here, obviously has."

Now if I'm not mistaken, I don't think I've attacked you in any way, shape, or form. I have not made any assumptions about your personality or your taste in movies. At this point you are saying that what I'm writing is inappropriate for this forum, while you are in fact the one attacking other posters. With that, I ask that you argue in a civil manner, and not attack anyone in the forums. I will admit to one faulty post, which has already been removed. I have been respecting all of the rules that Metacritic has laid out.

Now to the issue at hand, which happens to be Lost in Translation (in case some of us happened to have forgotten). You say that "V" has done an exceptional job of answering my question of why you like this film. First of all, that wasn't my question for God's sake. I said, and again I will repeat it: What is it that we don't get?

So no, "V" did not answer my question. What he wrote in his post wasn't even an answer, it was a quote from something else he had written.

Now you say that "the majority of the public didn't get the humor. Their criticism--it was too slow; too boring." Well, I personally didn't think it was slow or boring. I thought the movie was alright; never said it was bad. However, the humor was very simple. It wasn't complicated at all. A lot of the humor was based on how Japanese people are short and on how their language is very complicated. This humor is equivalent of that which was presented in Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2. Now, are you going to say that the majority of the people didn't get the humor in Rush hour? Granted, Lost in Translation did incorporate other humorous elements, but as I said, a large portion of it was based on making fun of Japanese people.

That's all I have to say for now. I encourage you to debate on this subject, but without having to stoop to a level of personal attacks. Ok, now I'm gonna clean the puke from my keyboard.

K-Dog

First off: I don't think that just because you don't like the movie means you don't "get" it. Just so that is clear. There are several people that I respect and that know significantly more about film than I do who don't like Lost in Translation, but I wouldn't say that they don't get it. Unless they don't, that is. With my favourite film of 2002 (Adaptation) I found that a lot of people actually DIDN'T get it, or at least thought the ending was utter rubbish (which is usually a sign, with that movie, of not quite "getting" the whole thing). There, I found myself defending the film with long thematic explanations. I don't think the case is the same with Lost in Translation at all. Here, it isn't a matter of script or humour or any other forbidding complexity (it's not Mulholland Drive, by any stretch ); it's more a textural or a tonal affinity with the movie that you may or may not have.

As I said before, what makes Lost in Translation remarkable IMO is that it captures a feeling perfectly and conveys it to the audience. I don't want to repeat myself, so I'm just going to refer you to my previous post as to what that feeling precisely is.

You might get this from the film, you might not. I would venture that it could be a matter of life experience, or that it could be a matter of whether you were convinced by the characters or not (if you weren't, and it doesn't seem like you were, no amount of cinematographic and directorial wizardry could get you to feel anything for the movie, even if you "know the feeling").

I think looking at Lost in Translation as simply a comedy is missing the point in some respects. I've only seen it once, but from my recollection I can pretty much agree that the more obvious jokes (the Nipponophobia, Scarlett's obnoxious boyfriend, Murray's disintegrating marriage) are not something that is particularly difficult to "get." This goes back to the main point. People don't "not get" anything about Lost in Translation. What they don't do is "feel" the film- absorb its unspoken thematic underpinning of bewilderment, loneliness, displacement, etc.

On another note, I would really appreciate if your responses weren't always bordering on flames.

I'm sorry if my posts seem a bit heated, however, you must understand that I really am tired of reading responses that don't pertain to the simple question at hand.

I will admit that my posts on this subject are pretty angry, however this was simply a reaction to the statement made earlier that "the majority of the public didn't get it".

If you read my posts in other threads, you will see that I don't always write with such an angry tone. However, this subject just so happens to be one that really pisses me off. My main problem is that most people I speak to about Lost in Translation come off as pretentious bastards because they almost all say the same thing: "You just don't get it."

Rather than claiming that most people just don't get it, why can't we make the claim that everyone gets it, but the movie just isn't that entertaining? Do you see where I'm going with this? It just seems that no Lost in Translation fan is ready to simply admit that maybe the movie really isn't all that entertaining afterall. Why does the audience get the blame for the film's failures rather than the film itself? That's why I sound so angry about this subject.

As for your point pertaining to looking at the film not just as a comedy, I fully agree. I know I only adressed the comedic elements of the film, and i apologize for that. My mistake.

Anyway, now I fully understand why you like the film and your reasons for why the film should be hailed as a masterpiece. HOWEVER, once again I am left empty handed, without a direct answer to my original question. I will just assume, by what you have written so far, that what you are hinting at is that most people don't appreciate the fact that Lost in Translation was able to communicate a very difficult emotion. I put it simply, and if I nailed it let me know (just try not to over-complicate it).

Now, assuming for the moment (since I can't ask you directly) that this is what you were stating, I will have to disagree by saying that perhaps everyone did in fact understand and even feel the emotion, but were simply not entertained by it. An emotion or idea can be communicated as perfectly as humanly possible yet still be slow and boring. Basically, what I'm saying is that perhaps people just don't find that kind of stuff fun to watch! Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're the one person out of ten that actually enjoys watching "chasms that are torn between people and the fleeting moments when those chasms are penetrated..."?

Hopefully you see my point and can feel my pain and suffering. Hopefully now you understand why I puke blood all over my keyboard everytime I hear or read responses such as yours and Eccentro's.

If I am right in my assumption about what you were attempting to say, then let me know so that I don't have to continue to ask the haunting question. If I'm wrong...then by all means continue to fan the flames.

K-Dog

quote:

---

Originally posted by K-Dog:
Did it ever occur to you that maybe you're the one person out of ten that actually enjoys watching "chasms that are torn between people and the fleeting moments when those chasms are penetrated..."?

---

Hahaha, yes I see your point. Except, I am the one person out of ten who finds it entertaining...but, whatever.

My fault, for attacking you personally. I was just so roused up that I did not think about what I was saying (eh, it wasnt that intelligent of an argument, anyways. Vykromond put it in much clearer terms.).

I guess, I saw your mad icon; my initial reaction being to become infuriated because you seemed so easily pissed over a statement which was not the intention to anger anyone. But, now that I have read posts outside this thread I am aware that that's just your signature.

My fault.

~Eccentro

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EccentricSam,

No problem. I have nothing against people expressing their thoughts and opinions. Anyway, now we don't have to bicker like two homeless men fighting over a half eaten Big Mac.

K-Dog