Message Board

I'd like to know what my fellow writers think of this film. It finally made it to my island yesterday and I must say I just don't get it. I love Bill Murray and think he did an excellent acting job but the story left me wondering. I can't imagine what the screenplay looked like.

Wow, I can't believe it. I just watched the Movie last night and I went to chime in with my opinion about it,and lo and behold here you are... weird.

Well to start with I loved it.

It really captured the loneliness and showed the feeling of isolation. The same kind of isolation that some feel everyday, but with a real cultural barrier rather than the barrier of our our own awkwardness.

Scarlett kind of reminds me of me. Not that I have a workaholic Girlfriend, as much as I have a busy girlfriend that does nothing. She's like Anna Faris's character actually. But I am smarter than Her and her friends. So alot of the times if I hang around with them too much, I feel isolated and feel that I'm rather snobby because I'm simply smarter than them. Not that I want too, but as much as I feel that I'm put in that situation. Like Scarlett amd that Hip-Hopster.

Scarlett's Charlotte is lonely and doesn't seem that she'd be with Giovanni(but I'm with Katherine, so what do I know) in real life, but she is. The problem is her own potential. Where do go with so much talent?Sometimes the talent is in your head and that's the reason you screw up so much. But than sometimes, you're just too talented and your brain fractures and you try to do too much at one time and then you overload.

And then their's Bill Murray, he seems so perfect in everything he does(save for Osmosis Jones). I'm so glad he's doing another movie with Andersen. I loved him in Rushmore. He's the exact opposite of Scarlett, he has no potential left, and it scares him. He doesn't want to be in Japan for money, he'd rather be close to home or does he? The question is never really answered as he doesn't seem to need the money. But longs for being in a play in L.A or New York or maybe london.

So much as he deserved the Best actor nod so did Scarlett and for that matter Sofia, just not in the same category is all.

When you fist see Sofia, she seems so shy and uncommanding, at least I got that feeling. But she creates beautifully. I didn't really care Virgin Suicides. Despite Kirsten Dunst being in it (I love her). I'm really glad that Sofia didn't cast her in this, it would of been wrong. Scarlett was perfect (and no not simply because she paraded in her underwear a fair amount of the time, I'm not that shallow).

So to say the least I liked it, got it, and it was really inspirational in showing that maybe someone out there can rescue you in a way that you didn't expect.

I thought my writing had layers, but Sofia is a far superior writer (as of right now, I can't comment about tomorrow, I might have a growth spurt).

Also the cinematography was gorgeous. I loved the pan shots of the city below as Scarlett looks over the city. And the fact that they shot it day and night, it seemed like a sceenwriter's dream as they got to shoot at almost anytime. I would've prefered more wind blowing in the car and more dusk and dan shots. But that's just me.

I'm sure I had more, but I have to go, so that I don't bore you all.

Go see the movie.

---- Jamie Jones ----

I should have been a bit more specific. What confused me is the vagueness of the ending. Murray whispers something we can't hear to Scarlett and they part. Where's the resolution? And come to think of it, was there any character arc for either progagonist? Your comment about cultural barriers made me chuckle. Not because I disagree with you. It just reminded me of a cook I had who was once a cannibal. Needless to say I never let him serve meat.

I didn't see the movie, but my other (better) half did. We both lived in Japan for many years (a few lifetimes ago; read 'decade').

While she found the movie to be quite funny, her observation was that one probably had to have been there and experienced the culture in order to "get it".

Not quite sure how that helps, but just know that you're likely in good company.

Write Often! RK Leonard

I loved the movie, but the script is easily the weakest part. More of a character study than a fully developed story. Can't beleive it's winning noms.

As for what Bill whispers in the end? I thought we covered this. It was:

"I know it was you, Fredo."

This film draws more disparate reactions than anything that has come out in ages. There are a number of people who become extremely aggravated at its mere mention, who absolutely hated everything about it. For me, this sort of film is why I go to the movies. I've seen it five times, and thoroughly enjoyed each viewing. (By contrast I haven't seen another film in the theater more than once in years and years.) It gave me that sense of visiting with the lives of real people as they are trying to sort through real issues. The script is, I would think, far stronger than anything I'm capable of writing. Also the use of sound in this film is quite amazing, probably on the level of the sound in a film like Blue Velvet. I understand a lot of people will not like the movie that much and some will truly hate it, and that's fine. For me, though, this was an astounding film.

The vast majority of the time, when critics and the Hollywood power establishment love a movie, I hate it. There are of course a few exceptions, but they're rare. I'll wait for this one on DVD.

So ya all kinda like racist movies, eh? Lip my stocking, the lat-pack and five minutes more of such. Poor Japs can't pronounce the letter "R". Drop a couple of more WMDs on em,eh? But LiT isn't just that; it's also a sophomore's wet dream, the kind that gave old Freud a bad name. And then the poor man can't squeeze into a shower in the Tokyo Hyatt Hotel, And then the second last scene: He bids goodbye to her at the hotel and gets into the cab. Last scene: He's on his way to the airport and he spots her walking down a street. Well, as they say, now you see it, now ya don't. A garbage movie.

Don't put me in that catagory, Henry, I didn't enjoy it either. My Japanese friends who saw it hated it. I can't imagine sitting through it five times. Not even if I was stuck in a Tokyo hotel indulging in self-pity and drinking myself stupid.

Whatever magic there is in this sweet little slice of life film is found not in the script, but in the very fortunate casting, and as John Houston said, 90% of the direction is solved there. Don't get me wrong - I liked the film and will p.u. the DVD to study it. But, there is a lot of " student film " work on the screen that many people are seeing as profound, the script is an afterthought, and I'd challenge anyone on this message with their name on this script to get a producer to look at it..

I wanted too, but unfortunately didn't like THE VIRGIN SUICIDES. I also have grown to accept nepotism as a Hollywood reality. Nepotism is not the matter here, but it is a factor.

Ron

Racist? I'm shocked at such a narrow point of view. Are you not a writer? Have you never heard of a thing called symbolism or Humour? Maybe because I'm from Canada we find humour in more things, but come on, that shower scene was funny.

The funniest... "My father fought on the American side of the Bay of Pigs". Now not even the stupidest Ashton Kutcher movie could come up with that, but to mix it in a movie like that? Sheer Genius.

Some of the people on this site remind me of people that watch a movie and say I could write better then that. P.S-- I would marry Scarlett or Sofia.

---- Jamie Jones ----

Racist? I'm shocked at such a narrow point of view. Are you not a writer? Have you never heard of a thing called symbolism or Humour? Maybe because I'm from Canada we find humour in more things, but come on, that shower scene was funny.

The funniest... "My father fought on the American side of the Bay of Pigs". Now not even the stupidest Ashton Kutcher movie could come up with that, but to mix it in a movie like that? Sheer Genius.

Some of the people on this site remind me of people that watch a movie and say I could write better then that.

P.S-- I would marry Scarlett or Sofia.

---- Jamie Jones ----

Best picture? What the f***?

Hated it.

I like Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansen was okay, too. But, I felt like they didn't have enough script and so the director said "stare at her for a few minutes." A best picture should be more than a one note study.

There were some shots that were beautiful but others were out of focus (intentional or not it bothered me) and hand-held.

I just think there were many other pictures done this year that would have been more deserviing. I have no problem with the other 4 nominated. Saw, and liked, them all. But this one? Not deserving. Not in my opinion.

Sigh.

I just read this Oscar prediction in my local "arts" paper:

"Best Original Screenplay: Sophia Coppola has a lock on this award. LOST IN TRANSLATION was one of the best films of the year, but it probably won't win any of the major awards. The Academy will want to honor Coppola's fine work on what was truly one of the most original films I've seen in years."

Yeah. We really should give her something. What do we have left? Oh, here ya go. "Best Original Screenplay."

What's wrong with this picture?

Oh, yeah. We pretty much covered that already. Sorry.

Shell ;o)

Count me among those who do not get what all the fuss is about. Too subtle for its own good. Really just a lot of fluff. Don't get me wrong -- I love subtlety, but not when that's all there is and when there is such a dreadful dearth of substance. Vanilla Sky -- a horrible film, was utterly profound by comparison.

The direction is pretty good, the acting is pretty good, the story rather weak. No charcater arcs whatsover (unless you consider Bob Harris' "awakening" at the end to be a sign of growth -- not terribly convincing; what guy wouldn't be smitten with Scarlett).

And dialogue. If mundane and banal is considered realistic, then this was true realism.

Overall, notably better than the average movie, but best picture? Our standards are woefully diminished.

I was in LA for a few days, and watched ' LOST ' with some friends who work in the industry, one a member of the Academy of Mo Pix Arts & Science. Both liked the film very much for its casting, acting, refreshing style, cuteness, and message. But, both agreed that the quality of this film is not in the screenplay. I personally feel that for industry insiders, a screenplay means many other things than what most of us focus on, and that all of the hype that we are seeing for the screenplay on this film, is informing us of a growing ambivalence to " the script " as being anything other than a basic structure to build a film on. Kurosawa said: " With a good script a good director can produce a masterpiece; with the same script a medicore director can make a passible film. But with a bad script even a good director can't possibly make a good film. For truly cinematic expression, the camera and microphone must be able to cross both fire and water. That is what makes a real movie. The script must be something that has the power to do this. " And John Houston said: " 90% of good direction is found in the casting. " Mr. Houston also paid little attention to the script once he started shooting, or does Martin Scorsese, and neither would not agree with Kurosawa, who they view as an icon in filmmaking, or David Mamet, who said that " direction is merely the extension of screenwriting. I think Hollywood awards a screenplay award to someone, when they don't know how else to say " you did good, " simply because no one truly understands the craft, its exact contribution in the process, or how to honor it - in the face of movie making being a director medium. LOST IN TRANSLATION was (the acting parts) very well directed due to good casting and a quirky script that had a lot of white space that the actors could take advantage of. But, the industry is not yet ready to give precious little Sophie its most prestegious award, because daddy produced it and his friend Fred Roos banked it. So, she gets " Best Screenplay " and nobody knows why. Oh.. It's making a lot of money..

Ron

dear eric,

what island?

GjHam

Kona on the Big Island.

my wife and i just rented it and saw it this weekend.

we were bored senseless.

i went into the other room and surfed the net while she was watching it, came back and saw the ending, and didn't feel like i missed a thing.

So, for its European release, it's to be re-titled "Girl Screwing Papa; any Papa"

Sums it it.

Rather.

Yes. Rather. But I can easily, and reluctantly, think of a better verb.

And as regards white space, rather, do eggjelly remember, poor chap, there ain't no thanks, nowhere, for eating crap, or licking crap. Not even in the U. S of A.

Cos that A don't mean Assholes.

Apparently a lot of people don't get it. That's one of the main things wrong with people who do not know how to watch movies today: if they don't get it they hate it and insult people who do get it.

As for the racist angle: give me a break. There's a huge contingent of people out there now that prefer to pretend people are the same the world over.

Guess what: Japanese people speak English with an accent! I must be racist for noticing that and even worse for being honest about it.

Guess what: Japanese people are on average several feet shorter than whiteys. I'm sorry - I really shouldn't point these differences out because that is racist.

For the record we need to stop ever setting movie in England, France, Australia (they have accents!! oh no!!), Spain, Italy, Mexico. And if we do we must be careful to portray all non whiteys as perfect, principled, honourable, good people who all look the same, dress the same, act the same, and think the same and speak English with a North American accent. And we must never, EVER acknowledge differences in any way shape or form because to do is racist!!!!

We must never point out that Japanese people give gifts as a matter or politeness - we can show them speaking with accents but must never let the characters notice or get a chuckle out of it.

We must never portray people of different races as being fun-loving or whacky - because nobody in any other countries ever enjoy Kareoke or having fun and they never laugh and they are NEVER whacky.

Get over yourselves people.

I bet you are the same people who think Phantom Menace was racist because Jar Jar Binks dared walked in a manner reminiscent of a black man in the 70s (even though the walk was created by a black man in the 90s who played the character.)

I won't add to some very articulate observations just --

I didn't enjoy the movie.

Nor do I believe it is deserving of a nomination in any category. And I have to bite my lip on that one because I think Bill Murray did an outstanding job - but he essentially played Bill Murray. both Murray and Johansson did a good job without much of a scipt.

Murray was the movie and to a lesser extent Scarlett Johansson but that was it.

The script was the weakest part. Two very depressed people find each other and do touristy stuff in Japan. At the end we still have two depressed people (albeit with a small smile) and a story that did not have an arc and did not move me.

If one calls a story an episodic visitation of Japanese 'must sees", ie. Karioke Bar, drinking sake out of a bamboo box, Japanese girlie bar, neon billboards, the bullet train, a couple of good golf shots, Mt. Fuji, the obligatory Shinto, Buddha temple and dialogue with R's in place of L's then this is your movie.

What would happen if any of us submitted this screenplay? What's the chance of it even being read, let alone be made, let alone being...

Just my opinion.

Peter

"Best Screenplay?" I think we're all trying waaay too hard.

Peter - good comments.

Well, now that "Lost" has won BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY, I guess the three of us who actually liked the movie are on the same page as the Academy. Does that mean that the issue is closed? Probably not.

Oh well. Well deserved Sofia, congrats.

---- Jamie Jones ----

Peter's point is well made. If she was not closely related to Francis, what chance would she have had of even getting her script read? Next to zero, because it certainly was not the 'lightning in a bottle' that will surely be read. Murray was Murray, and even he, jokingly, said that he still did not think she knew what she was doing. Yet, she got financing, Murray, three nominations and an Oscar. Not bad.

I would like to hear the comments of those who run the major competitions. Although I enjoyed the film, it was little more than a long student film with clever, talented stars and high production values, Francis Ford Coppola, and Fred Roos. This script winning the academy award makes the judgement of competition readers, judges, screenwriting teachers, craft and character pundits, execs who " can't find any worthy material " and those who pontificate " the cream raises to the top, " instantly irrevelant, other than their power or lack of it to open a door.

The wisdom learned from the matter, is to do everything possible to circumvent the absurdity of the ego driven process.

" Nobody knows nothin. " William Goldman. Ron

One scene in lost in translation sums the film up - the scene in which the ad director is getting Bill Murray to adopt different facial expressions. While Murray plays it well there is nothing new or original in this scene and yet it is portrayed and filmed as if it is a magnificent comic scene. Kaufmann's screenplay's - all of them -are far more inventive than L.I.T. and it is writers like he that are pushing comedic - and other - boundaries that deserve most recognition. If I had seen L.I.T. late at night on TV I would have considered it fun to pass the time with.

Funny, I don't have that reaction at all. Translation and Eternal Sunshine both speak to the longing for - and difficulty in - connecting, are both extremely original, and yet Translation achieves an emotional intimacy that I find to be unmatched by Kauffman's or anyone else's work in recent memory. I love both films, but for all its simplicity, Translation is the more innovative work.