"
Lost in Translation"
*** 1\2 (out of ****)
The very first time we see Bill Murray - we haven't learned his character's name yet - he is in the backseat of a car. His eyes are closed as his head rests against the window. He opens his eyes open and looks out at his surroundings. He is in Tokyo. From his sleep he woke up on another continent, in another country and in a different city. Nothing is written in English on the billboards nor store fronts he passes by. He is literally in a world he does not understand.
That's how director Sofia Coppola begins her story in "Lost in Translation" (2003) but look at what she continues to do. The first 15 minutes of the film are episodic. It seems as if nothing is happening to drive the film forward. Murray, who by now we have learned is Bob Harris, a famous movie star, walks into a hotel and is greeted by the staff. He sits in his hotel room, goes to the hotel's bar / restaurant, and back to his room. Coppola and her cinematographer Lance Acord use a combination of long and extreme long shots. This emphasizes Bob's surroundings and his relationship to his environment. He is only a small piece in the world around him. Coppola may not be saying much at first glance but she is setting the scene for a story about loneliness, isolation, and lack of communication. Her decisions signal that this will be a film about mood and tone rather than loud actions.
Coppola maintains that atmosphere while introducing us to Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), a young American woman in Tokyo with her photographer husband, John (Giovanni Ribisi), by using the same techniques. Coppola however adds a reoccurring visual of Charlotte sitting by her hotel window sill staring out at the city. It's a more poetic aesthetic to invoke the same detachment we sense in Bob.
Both of these characters happen to be staying at the same hotel and eventually spot each other. They engage in slightly awkward small talk and because audiences have been trained by movie conventions we assume Bob and Charlotte will begin a romance. Is Bob attracted to Charlotte? Could be. She's an appealing young woman. Does Charlotte find Bob handsome? I don't think so and never picked up on any flirtation. These however are the wrong questions to ask. "Lost in Translation" is not about an affair between two people or romance. It is about something equally as vulnerable; friendship and intimacy.
Intimacy doesn't necessarily mean romanticized love, intimacy can be an intellectual or emotional bond. That is what these characters crave and yet are incapable of - translating their feelings and creating a connection. Coppola immediately suggests a "veil of intimacy" from the film's opening shot of a woman's (Johansson) backside, as she lays on a bed wearing sheer panties. It's a provocative image but not one I interpreted as blatantly sexual. The buttocks aren't exposed, they are hinted at, thus implying a veil. It's masking something more than eroticism. How one interprets this scene will set the tone for their expectations of what follows.
For example critic Armond White addressed the opening shot in his
New York Press review with a sense of bewilderment, "The three title words slowly materialize beneath a shot of a young woman's ass sheathed in pink pantyhose.
Stuff magazine couldn't have asked for more." White went on to add, "Perhaps director-writer Sofia Coppola is shrewd enough to know that this is exactly the trendy stuff that garners one hype as an "original" film artist". Finally White concludes with "Whatever. It's ambiguous, thus "cool."" By missing any emotional commentary Coppola could be suggesting, White then proceeded to blast the film. Others might find the shot sexy and these viewers will be let down when no other sexy things happen. Stephanie Zacharek, writing for
Salon hits on something truer to the film's spirit calling it, "a love story but not a romance."
And "love story" doesn't mean "Lost in Translation" is about unrequited love either. There is a quiet moment in the film which may go unnoticed to some. Bob and Charlotte have spent a night out together with some people Charlotte knows. On a taxi ride back to their hotel, Charlotte falls asleep and Bob carries her to her room and tucks her into bed. The next scene is of Bob on a phone call with his wife. This is the first time we have seen Bob speak to her. Prior in the film she has communicated with Bob via fax and Fed-Ex. Shaming him for not telling their son happy birthday before leaving or asking for his opinion on carpet samples. But after spending a night out with Charlotte, Bob feels lonely and calls his wife, hoping for a connection. He was on an emotional high when interacting with Charlotte and her friends but with her sleeping, he wants to continue the feeling. Unfortunately, with the time difference, his wife is in the middle of trying to send their kids off to school and doesn't have time to chit-chat. Bob can't fully communicate his feelings of vulnerability to his wife. When he utters the words "I love you", she has already hung up. Missed communication. Others could assume he called his wife because of a guilty conscience for spending the night out with Charlotte, despite the viewer not seeing anything to invoke such a strong defense mechanism in Bob. To me it is loneliness that led to that call not a feeling of betrayal.
Compare Bob's telephone conversation to one Charlotte has. After being left alone by her husband, Charlotte attempts to explore the city. She finds herself at a Buddhist Temple and looks on with a blank expression. In the following scene she is back at her hotel room, crying while on the phone. She has called a friend, possibly her mother, though she refers to the person by their first name. She wants to explain the experience of seeing the Monks however the person puts her on a brief hold. It is just long enough for Charlotte to regain her composure and hide her feelings. When the voice comes back on the phone and asks Charlotte to repeat what she was saying, Charlotte responds by saying it wasn't important and hangs up. In both scenarios with Bob and Charlotte neither person could be honest about why they were reaching out to someone.
This explains why there is so much awkwardness in the dialogue between Bob and Charlotte. Their long pauses could be considered "sexual tension", as some critics have called it, but that kind of chemistry was not palpable on-screen to me. If these characters were talkative to everyone else around them except each other, that would be a different story. Their long pauses do signal something unspoken and that may not be a burning desire for one another. It is more likely a burning desire to be natural. Natural in their own skin and within their environment. When "Lost in Translation" was initially released, the critics and the public made much of a whisper at the end of the film between these characters. What did they say? Could it be a key to understand or confirm a suspicion the audience may have had? It doesn't matter. Look at what you see in that scene instead. Whatever message Bob tells Charlotte, he has to whisper it. He can't speak it freely for others to hear. That's how emotionally closed off these people are. Their feelings cannot be declared, they must be whispered. This action tells us just as much as whatever message might have been exchanged.
Throughout the film Coppola compares and contrasts Bob and Charlotte - their differences in age, gender, professions and marriages. Bob has been married for twenty-five years and Charlotte for two but whether it is twenty-five years or two it doesn't matter. Both marriages lack communication. When Bob was on the phone with his wife, they discussed mundane things, the kind of every day occurrences most married people discuss. On the other hand there is rarely a scene between John and Charlotte when he is not half way out the door, telling Charlotte he loves her. These two barely speak to each other.
The most animated we ever see John is when he runs into an American actress, Kelly (Anna Faris) also staying at the hotel. She shouts out how much she loves the way John shoots her. John is enraptured by her energy and for a brief moment Charlotte seems to be the third wheel in the conversation. Kelly is the flip side of the coin. If Bob and Charlotte have nothing to say, Kelly speaks a lot but its all meaningless. She is fun but shallow. Everything feels performative with Kelly, even when she seems to be sharing vulnerable stories about her father. Bob, Kelly, Charlotte and even John are all vessels looking for ways to express themselves but they all resist the honest path forward.
Ask yourself, how honest are Bob and Charlotte being when it is discovered Bob slept with a woman in his hotel room? Charlotte doesn't see the woman when she knocks on Bob's door to ask him out for sushi but does hear her voice. Charlotte walks away quietly shaken. Bob eventually makes his way to the restaurant. There is an unspoken friction between them. It goes beyond their usual awkwardness. Charlotte, I suspect, is hurt by Bob's actions. Not because she wanted to be the one in his bed but because he found someone else to share a private moment with. Was it just sex or did it go deeper? Charlotte could potentially be alone again. Bob seems to regret his actions as soon as he wakes up. Is he thinking about his wife at that moment or Charlotte? It is easy to interpret Charlotte's response as heartache but I think it is disappointment. Bob is embarrassed by his lapse in judgement and being discovered. But neither says what they are truly feeling in that instant.
Coppola is also very subtle in her commentary on the film industry, celebrity and overseas markets. Notice the distinction between Kelly and Bob. There was once a time top list actors didn't commonly appear in commercials. It would signal the end of a career. Actors would go overseas to capitalize on their fame and appear in commercials American consumers would never see. Bob is in Tokyo to do a whiskey commercial. He is ashamed of it. Kelly is in Tokyo to promote her new film. She is happy to be there because the overseas market is important to the film industry. Kelly and Bob are at opposite ends. A lot of critics ignored this aspect of the film, focusing instead on Charlotte and Bob's "romance" but there is something interesting in the background being said through the Kelly and Bob characters.
"Lost in Translation" was a continuation of themes presented in Sofia Coppola's directorial debut film, "The Virgin Suicides" (1999). Although "Suicides" was a well made film which highlighted Coppola's craft, "Lost in Translation" saw the growth of an artist. "Translation" and "Suicides" and all subsequent films Coppola has directed address themes of loneliness, isolation and celebrity. My personal favorite Coppola film is "The Bling Ring" (2013), an absolute indictment of celebrity obsessed culture. But "Translation" seems to be the one critics gravitated the most to. Coppola received Academy Award nominations for best original screenplay - which she won - and best director. With the director nomination, Coppola became the third women ever nominated in the category and the first American woman. Prior nominees were Lina Wertmuller and Jane Campion. The film also won a best picture nomination.
I think a lot of critics and the public misread / misinterpreted this film and much of that had to do with the age difference between the characters and the idea that this was a "romantic comedy". What exactly was "romantic" about this movie - the loneliness, the isolation or the miscommunication? As such Coppola's next films would firmly address the age issue - which lets be honest, bothers many in the public - and repackaged it as a father / daughter dynamic - "Somewhere" (2010) and "On the Rocks" (2020). Interestingly, neither of those became the cultural phenomenon "Translation" achieved.
In addition to the acclaim Sofia Coppola received, "Lost in Translation" was viewed as a triumph for Bill Murray - he received his sole best actor Oscar nomination. In Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, Roger Ebert's Great Movie review, Ebert begins by praising Murray, stating the actor gives "one of the most exquisitely controlled performances in recent movies. Without it, the film could be unwatchable. With it, I can't take my eyes away." Murray is very good in the film. It is now difficult to think of another actor in the role. I enjoyed how Coppola restrained Murray. The performance is filled with anxiety and unease, which have always been traits in any number of Murray's performances. Those qualities would reveal themselves verbally though through wise-cracks and sarcastic remarks. Here is it all kept inside and reveals itself through quiet gestures. In one scene Bob is sitting at the bar and two men recognize him and want to chat. He is immediately uncomfortable. He gives the men a knowing nod, gets up and leaves. Slow deliberate movements done with purpose. We know what Bob is feeling in that moment. That's good acting, visualizing the internal.
Scarlett Johansson on the other hand, didn't receive as much praise from the critics despite the fact she is mostly doing the same things Murray's performance is. The key difference is Murray gets to add humor to his performance. Johansson's character is always in a state of detachment. That makes it harder for an audience to connect with. It doesn't feel as versatile which limits its appeal.
That leads me to view Coppola and "Lost in Translation" as part of a European tradition. There are a few moments when Bob and Charlotte watch movies on TV and more often than not it is foreign films playing, such as Fellini's "La Dolce Vita" (1960), which just so happen to also be about celebrity. It's not however Fellini that comes to my mind while watching "Translation", it is instead another gifted Italian filmmaker, Michelangelo Antonioni, who often made films around themes of alienation. Like Antonioni's films, "Lost in Translation" is something you "experience" as much as you "watch" it. The mood and tones of the film are what carry you away, if you are on the film's same rhythm. It's not unlike how Sofia's father, Francis Ford Coppola was clearly inspired by "Blow-Up" (1967) when making
"The Conversation" (1974).
"Lost in Translation" received a total of four Academy Award nominations and won three Golden Globes - best picture (musical or comedy), best actor (Murray) and best screenplay (Coppola). It was named by several critics as one of the best films of 2003 - Roger Ebert, Richard Roeper, Andrew Sarris, Stephen Holden and Stephanie Zacharek among them, making it the most critically successful film in Coppola's career, so far. This is a slow, deliberate film that does a lot quietly, if you can translate it.
