As mentioned in a previous review, this isn't a "review site" but my personal take or response to a film; it's going to contain spoilers and probably a bit of snarkiness. You've been warned.
I'm not sure about the strategy of labeling LOST IN TRANSLATION a "comedy" as they did on the DVD; I can't remember how they marketed the film, but I think the implication of "comedy" was there as well. I distinctly remember seeing the scene where Bill Murray trapped on the exercise machine, yelping, "Help!" Which was classic Bill Murray. And there were moments of irony and moments of quiet humor, moments of pathos leavened by a recognition the humor inherent in the human experience. But this was not a comedy, and whoever got the bright idea to label it as such needs to be smacked around or have a note from their therapist. Or both.
The problem is, we were expecting funny -- laugh-out-loud funny -- from something labeled "comedy" with Bill Murray starring. Unfortunately, that expectation completely undermined the viewing of this film, which is much more a slice-of-life, a moment of two ships passing in the night, a moment where they come away from a brief friendship having received something far greater than mere "friendship" implies, and their life will be forever changed and, one hopes, enriched, as a result. Had the movie been advertised as a drama, (and guys, really, it's okay for us to occasionally laugh in a drama, but not so much the not laughing for the majority of a "comedy"), then I probably would have enjoyed it.
At about the 3/4 point, a quote from our living room:
"Do you have any idea what the point is yet?"
"I'm not sure. Friendship, maybe. I think we've watched most of the film so far."
"God, I hope so."
That is not a good omen.
The thing is, I can enjoy slow, deliberate films with the best of 'em. Antonioni's THE PASSENGER is one of my all-time favorites, because the lengthy stretches of slow movement (or no movement) forces the audience to really see and feel the tension created in those pauses, and Antonioni does something evocative with the camera, and that is to make the audience almost a charcter in the film because we become the "camera eye view" -- and by placing us "in" the film, the tension worked. Sophia Coppola did similar things with the camera work in this film, and she's not afraid to let the silence fill the moment, to let the absolute isolation of each of the characters permeate the story via the visual -- which is so unusual in today's fast-paced snap-cut-quick to the next scene type of pacing, it's riveting.
Granted, I doubt this film could have been released as widely as it was had it not had someone as well-known as Bill Murray in the lead, and I doubt any regular indie writer/director would have ever raised the funds to get that story made -- even on a shoestring budget -- had their last name not been Coppola, but that's a different rant for another day.
You're less cynical than I expected.
I think the actors are superb… but truly speaking I expected a little bit more from the movie itself. I’d say it’s quite unnatural or something like that.
Sally http://www.all-translations.com
If all the year were playing holidays, To sport would be as tedious as to work. mike Ill deeds are doubled with an evil word.
Posted by: mike at December 2, 2004 09:08 PM