Not bad for Sofia, not the best of the year

Rating: 9/10 (31 March 2004)

Lost in Translation was hailed by many critics as the best film of the year, and Sofia Coppola's direction as the biggest cinematic achievement of 2003. I do not agree with those claims. However, I did find Lost in Translation a beautiful, touching, sad film that quietly exposed us to the struggle within all people to find happiness, plain and simple.
We spend our hour and forty-five minutes (which do sometimes feel a bit longer than that) with Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and pretty much no one else. Bob is a has-been sort of movie star, filming some ads for liquor in Japan, and Charlotte is visiting the country with her husband John(Giovanni Ribisi), an up-and-coming photographer. Both of them are unhappy. And for the first part of the film, Coppola pretty much bombards us with images of their unhappiness. Bob sits around in a daze watching Japanese tv or drinking in the hotel bar. Charlotte sits around in a daze in her hotel room window or drinking with her husband and Kelly (Anna Farris), the very annoying young starlet who's also staying in the hotel. Life sucks. Sigh.
This would all be really bad if it weren't for Sofia's wonderful knack for catching emotion through cinematography, music, and facial expressions. She saves it - but barely. It's almost too much. A great set of scenes featuring Bill Murray at photo and commercial shoots helps ease the boredom.
Once the two meet, the movie becomes interesting, if fairly predictable. The two have a unique chemistry that is beautiful, not creepy (thank God, because I honestly was worried that it would be). They develop a fast friendship and the movie takes a turn for the more interesting. The good things? Bill and Scarlett are both great actors. The bad things? Not much happens. This movie has no plot. So don't look for one, it's not there. It is simply a character study - and they don't change much. They mostly just talk about how they feel and how unhappy they are - but that doesn't really change throughout the film.
I'm probably making it sound like a bad movie. It's not. It's pretty interesting. But a few things are clear. 1) Sofia is not a dialogue goddess. Part of the reason her first film, The Virgin Suicides, is better is because Sofia wrote a narration that carries the film so the dialogue (which, again, there is not much of) does not have to. There is no narration in this film (nor could there be) so we're stuck with Sofia and her mediocre and very thin dialogue.
2) This movie was written for Bill Murray. And he's great in it. But is he the best actor of the year, you ask? No way. Because at the end of the day, he's just a more sad and emotional facet of the same old Bill we know (and love, yes, we do love him) - but he's no Sean Penn. Not now, not ever. Scarlett is the one with the real talent, and though it's there in this movie, she was not slighted for not being nominated for awards for this film - she's better in Girl With A Pearl Earring anyway.
3) The critics of the world always want a small indie film to praise and exalt each year. This year, rather than In America or Whale Rider (both infinitely better films) they chose Lost in Translation - and I'll tell you why. Because it's directed by up-and-coming and certainly talented FEMALE director Sofia. Yes, Whale Rider was also directed by a woman - but her last name is Caro, not Coppola. And if the Academy's gonna notice a woman's film, you can bet your ass they're gonna go for a name like Coppola...it somehow makes the act of exalting a woman's film a little easier to swallow.
So my take? Lost in Translation is lovely, but sort of pointless. Go rent The Virgin Suicides to see Sofia at her best.
8/10