An in-your-face subtle movie...

Rating: 3/10 (16 August 2013)

What happens in this movie? A guy from the US stays in a Tokyo Hotel. He's alone. A much younger girl, also from the US, stays their too. She's alone too. They meet. They become friends. They fall in love. Eventually they part. Now what's the subtext of all this? Two people, alienated from their lovers and the meaning of their lives, meet and find a soul-mate in each other. Convention and duty keep them from becoming lovers, and they part.
Compare both statements... abracadabra: They are the same. It's purest on-the-nose writing, mistaken for *subtlety*. Not only by large parts of the audience, obviously, but by the director herself, too, i'm afraid. But in fact, it's the direct opposite of subtlety. Subtlety is when themes of maturity and sexual obsession lurk underneath a fast-paced action plot (just a random example, that comes to mind...). Here, everything the camera shows us is exactly what it's all about. So no, sorry, no *subtlety* here.
Yes, the cinematography is nice here, but without a story to support it, any aesthetic quality will wear off, quickly. Every time. This is a constant in cinema, no, an axiom. Aesthetics are good to transport meaning, to enrichen it, resonate it, or contradict it. But in cinema, they can never *make* a movie, and any attempt to do so will lead to a movie that is disenchanted by multiple viewings. Or by years passing by, changing taste and deadening the audience against exhausted aesthetic stimuli.
So, even though with about 108 minutes, Lost In Translation isn't a long film by today's standards, it gets boring. You're desperately starving for something to happen. Turns. Sparks. Meaningful dialogue. Anything. You know, i get it. It is about that nothing really has meaning. That you can't make a connection. But again, that is trivial. There's nothing underneath, especially nothing that would be cinematic in nature. For the cinema, the natural narrating mode is ACTION. And you know so well that i don't mean explosions... just simple action like how Bob is slipping onto that bed, close to Charlotte, where they watch TV. The way he does it. How he moves. How does she react to that? How does she move? Coppola denies as any bit of real dramatic action that could very well be in this movie. Going against the grain because she wants to, and because she can.
Many say it makes them think, but i disagree. Rather, the whole movie feels like getting breastfed with a certain, rather limited spectrum of emotions. It tries very hard to hammer this one point home, and this makes it upsetting. "I do get it! On with the story, please!" you wanna shout at the screen. For example, all the background music playing in bars and karaoke boxes ALWAYS shouts the subtext of that respective scene right in your face. Very poor, and grossly underestimating the intellectual capacities of us viewers.
I think Bill Murray is one of the great actors of our time, and the scenes of Bob's shootings clearly showcase his craft. In fact, i'm absolutely convinced that in many scenes, Murray actually felt just as flabbergasted by Coppola as Bob does so in the movie by that Japanese director character. He clearly needs more SUBTEXT, but there just is none... so naturally, he somehow has to act out these stiff scenes, somehow make the presumably right facial expression to non-existent content. If he's not up to his usual heights, it's obviously not his fault but due to a weak, shallow, and mostly pointless script.
Same goes for Scarlett Johannson. Her character doesn't make a lot of sense, and is a mostly soulless composite of superficial characterization and some backstory (college degree...). I urge anyone who complains about her performance to act a person that "just doesn't know. anything" within a plot that doesn't move. Anywhere. It is impossible, and almost an insult to the actor. Also, i don't know what all the running around in underwear was supposed to accomplish. I mean yes, i got a hunch, but i'm actually too scared to write it down. A danggit here it is: "Ah, ain't i a gorgeous little chick don't you think.. But so lost.. i'm really lost.. Shouldn't you love me for that shouldn't you?.. But hey don't get gross here please, i mean it's about u know i'm cute u know.. Not that sex thing you jerk.. Or maybe a little?.. Aaarghhh, i don't know myself.. i really don't.."
After all, i did somehow enjoy watching this movie and seeing Bill Murray in a different kind of role. Also, i do think it is always a good idea to put Johannson on film in her youth. She is one of the most beautiful woman on this planet. Some scenes are interesting, even worth remembering. But overall, the story is lacking so hard that i can't imagine re-watching this except for educational reasons (e.g. how to NOT write a screenplay). Five stars minus one for the nepotism you're smelling a mile away, minus another one for not getting that one "pre- climactic" close-up of Johannson in focus = 3 stars.