Not the masterpiece it claims to be

Rating: 3/10 (31 July 2004)

With The Godfather part 3, Sofia Coppola proved that acting isn't her forte. So what about directing? Well, Lost in Translation is my first taste of Ms Coppola behind the camera, and let's just say; if her other films aren't as good as this, then I hope this is my last taste also.
Lost in Translation is the tale of two people that suffer from insomnia and have hit a dry patch in their lives. The two are in the foreign land of Tokyo, Japan. They are outcasts in this land, not just because of the language, but the culture too. So what we basically have here is a story of two fish out of water that find romance. You may notice that my plot analysis isn't very detailed, and that has a reason; this movie has very little plot. It has a premise, and that's all; and all it does is play out from that premise. The movie is very random as it doesn't follow a set formula, and although that can work for some movies because it can be spontaneous; it doesn't work here. The film is very subdued, too subdued in fact, and after a while you are instilled with a notion that nothing out of the ordinary will happen in this movie; and it doesn't. This will be to the movie's credit in some people's opinions, because, as we all know, movies that are slow are ultimately more intelligent than anything that is entertaining. And as you should have gathered from that last sentence, I was being sarcastic.
That's my first major criticism of the movie; it settles into itself to a point where after a while you forget you're watching a movie, and it just seems like you're simply watching a fish bowl with two people in it; and although this is good in terms of realism, and I don't doubt that Sofia intended it that way; movies are supposed to be an escape from reality, and although some people would disagree; movies are also meant to be entertaining, and I for one don't watch movies to not be entertained; Lost in Translation fails in both of those respects.
In it's bid to realistic; Lost in Translation is ultimately a hollow movie experience. It's a simple tale of two people, and that's all that can be took from the film. The characters lack depth; he's a bored middle aged man going through a mid-life crisis and she's a bored wife that is doubting her two year marriage; we don't learn anything about the two characters other than this, and a few minor details such as the fact that he has a wife and kids. In one scene, through dialogue, Bill Murray gives Scarlett words of wisdom regarding children; and this is as deep as the film gets. She says that the advice he gives is different from everything she's heard regarding the subject, but it's merely blatantly obvious advice that any fool with kids or an imagination could conjure up; and this film does that a lot. Two people have empty lives, they find love and they like it. Yes, that's great; now where's the point? I imagine that people with empty lives can relate to this film, but I can't see why.
Had the film have had depth of character, it would have improved it vastly. Take Brief Encounter; a similar film along similar lines, but it worked. It worked because it was fleshed out; we can see the main character's predicament clearly, which enables us to get inside of her head and see why she wants to spice up her life by having an extra marital affair. Here, we have none of that. Scarlett Johansson's husband is about as much use in the film as the taxi driver that took them to a party, or the waiter that served them drinks; here's there so we know he's there, but we don't learn anything about the couple's predicament, so why should we care if she finds her life empty and hollow? We know nothing about her. It's similar with him; he's a big movie star that is past his prime and now he's advertising whiskey in Japan, so what? We're supposed to empathise with this guy why? That's another major criticism of this film; the characters have no feeling, they're just there.
Despite the review so far; Lost in Translation is not completely void of positive aspects. It has one in particular; the cinematography. Although I don't think the way Tokyo was photographed in this movie is among the best examples of location shoots of all time, and it certainly isn't enough to carry the film; it is good. However, although it is well photographed; Tokyo is not a nice place. Take Roman Holiday; another similar film along similar lines. That film also made the best use of it's surroundings to increase the impact of the film, the only difference is that it's locations were beautiful. Rome is a beautiful city; the style of the architecture, the relaxed feel of the city is incredible; Tokyo looks cheap and nasty. This is very much an opinion; but Tokyo is a hive of plastic rubbish and is overall a place with a very low quality feel. The town is not beautiful; in Roman Holiday, the location almost took on a life of it's own, and it increased the potency of the film; here all we have is an awful metropolis that offsets the potential beauty of the story. The hosts of the film; the Japanese, were also not portrayed in the best light.
Onto the acting, then. Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson were praised for their performances in this movie, and they both got the essence of their characters right. Bill Murray did, at times, look like he was trying to be funny and never really pulling it off, though. However, I cant give any plaudits for the acting. The characters in the film are, like the rest of the film, subdued, and I'm sorry; but anyone can do subdued. I can mope around looking solemn and bored, and so can anyone else; it's the roles that require charisma and the actor to work that should win the awards; not stuff like this. This is typical awards fodder, however; and I'm afraid it will continue to be like this and I will continue to be baffled by it. But neither Scarlett, nor Bill won the award; and neither Scarlett nor Bill deserved the award.
Sofia Coppola can create a picture that's memorable; the shot where a pink wig wearing Scarlett puts her down on Bill's lap sticks out in my memory, as does the scene with Bill on the bed; but when it comes to creating a scene, Sofia doesn't do memorable, I saw this film a little under two hours ago, and I've forgotten bits of it already. This is mostly due to the fact that in it's 95 minute (or so) running time, nothing really happens; and if a movie is forgettable, it cannot be a masterpiece. And forgettable, Lost in Translation is. The scenes tend to lack things which would make them memorable because they're so subdued and they fade into each other; which although this creates fluidity in the scenes, it discredits the movie because nothing really stands out from anything else.
Overall, Lost in Translation is not an awful film; it does have its plus points, but it's not a great film either. Lost in Translation is forgettable, it doesn't stand up, in any way, to the Romance genre's true milestones; Casablanca, It Happened One Night, Roman Holiday etc. It left me feeling cold at it's conclusion. And that's not a note that a masterpiece should end on. Lost in Translation is not a boring film, and it does have enough to hold the audience's interest throughout, but once the movies ends and the curtains close, does Lost in Translation really have an impact?