what is cinema?

Rating: Null/10 (19 April 2007)

What is cinema? OK, you all know what it is. But what is it supposed to be? Escapism? Action? Acting? If you believe that cinema is those three things then you probably won't have time for "Lost In Translation". Despite it's "exotic" setting (Tokyo) it can hardly be described as escapist. The two main characters barely escape their hotel rooms. There's scarcely any action as nothing, apart from emotion, really happens. Oh and despite two totally convincing and believable "performances" the two main actors don't really act so much as behave.
So what is it? Well, the film certainly stayed with me for a long time after I'd seen it. What was I expecting? Traditionally a film has a camera, that you are not particularly aware of, focusing on two or more people who say their lines, their voices confronting the viewer. Things happen, the camera focuses on the action, on something. Here the camera focuses on Scarlett Johansson (Charlotte) as she sits, lies, reclines in her underwear in a hotel room, reading, looking out the window, thinking (thinking what?) She doesn't do anything. She's not presented sexily. She doesn't play up to the camera. She's not aware of the camera's presence. She's just another girl lazing round, bored perhaps, lost for something to do definitely; another girl albeit an exceptionally beautiful one, huge breasts and perfect  erm  rear imprisoned not by underwear so much as inertia. It's as if we, the viewer, are not passive, waiting to be lulled into our own inertia of "entertainment". There's no entertainment to be had here because we, the viewer, the camera, are active  actively watching Charlotte, gazing at her  stalking her. Charlotte lazes round her room. Charlotte gets on a train. Charlotte watches a Buddhist wedding. Blimey! And there's nothing to suggest that this is a film in any traditional sense, except perhaps for some occasional "alternative" music. A better choice might have included Abba's "The Day Before You Came", perhaps the ultimate "I'm being stalked but I don't know it" song. Actually, that would have been dreadful.
Although it's always great to hear some vintage Mary Chain is their "Just Like Honey", about a girl who is "moving up and so alive" with its yearning repeat of "for you", really suitable?
I don't want to dwell on the accusations of racism that have been levelled at this film. I think the portrayal of a foreign culture experienced through the eyes of two Americans, who don't want to stray very far, is fair enough. When Charlotte experiences traditional Japanese culture it's respectfully presented. You wouldn't have to go far to discover ludicrous and laughable Japanese attempts at pop Western culture, which are gleefully presented here. As it is, America doesn't come out of it too well either, witness vacuously confident (talentless) "hottie", Kelly (Anna Faris.)
So what is it about the film that remains in the mind of the viewer after it's finished? It's moving to me emotionally because the plight of real people are moving emotionally. But is this film more honest than traditional "it's a film" cinema? After all Charlotte and Bob (Bill Murray) aren't real. They're characters in a film. They even watch a film, La Dolce Vita. (Other films Sofia Coppola may have had in mind: Roman Holiday, Brief Encounter.)
What is "Lost In Translation" trying to say? That you can fall in love at any time, in any place? The two characters undoubtedly do fall in love. On their last night Charlotte wants Bob to stay but jokes about what they would do if he stayed - "form a jazz band". Bob wants to stay  and elongates his stay by accepting an invitation to appear on a naff TV show. He finds it harder and harder to leave as the moment of his departure draws near. What about his wife and kids? Does he feel he's too old for her? (another film, Charlie Chaplin in Limelight). Do they just feel like this because they are far from home and lonely? What exactly is being lost in translation?
To leave her is perhaps more faithful in love to her than to stay.
Their dilemma is touching because both characters are floored. She is self absorbed and possibly snobby. He cheats on his wife and his own career, having abandoned film acting for the quick buck of ludicrous (fake) commercials.
The conclusion subverts the chasing after someone who turns out not to be that someone cliché. It is her and their goodbye is moving because it looks so genuine. It isn't genuine though. It's two actors and it's a film. They're pretending. So maybe "Lost In Translation" belongs in one of the most traditional film genres after all. A love story.