Is Lost In Translation really good, or crap?

[Matt Pacini]

I haven't seen it, but so far, everyone I've spoken with who has, the opinions have ranged from "worse piece of S**T I've ever seen", to "kinda OK, but not very good".

 

I hate to get political here, but given the typical left-leanings of most of Hollywood, do you think this was a giveaway award, because everyone was so jazzed that:

 

A. She's a woman director.

B. She's a Coppola.

 

Especially since from what I've heard, it looked like it was mostly improvised dialog, yet she gets an Oscar for the screenplay?????

 

Matt Pacini

[Rachel Oliver]

A screenplay is so much more than just dialogue though.....

I thought the film was really lovely, I think it takes guts to make such a "slight" film when the world is watching. However was it worth an oscar nomination? I have no clue and maybe I dont care either, all I know is I enjoyed the peace it gave me in a world so full of extremes in information. These days something quiet speaks volumes.

Go and see it when you are in the mood to view something with an open mind (I know it's tough ;) )

Olly

[Mitch Gross]

While I fear that it has been hopelessly overhyped so that people walk in with far too high of expectations, I rather enjoyed the film. This is not her first film, so I don't think that the accolades can be attributed soley to her being a female with a famous father. It's a particular type of film and not of a style that most general audiences are used to, so some may appreciate it more than others. Take the film for what it is and perhaps you will enjoy it, perhaps it will not be your cup of tea.

[Jason Maeda]

yeah i really agree with rachel. the tone and "lightly discombobulated" feel of the film is a success of style at the very least, and that alone makes it noteworthy. as far as its worthiness to receive an academy award...i look at it like "why not? all the other films that won aa's sucked even more". at this point i really try not to even pay attention to them, it's too distressing.

 

i really liked lance's work. all the complaints i've heard from people about soft shots and uncorrected sources sound just like the complaints about "breathless" or italian neo-realism that were voiced at the time. frankly, the best shot on my reel is a happy accident where the subject was too close to the lens and fell out of focus. now i do it on purpose all the time. i really appreciate a perfectly "drafted" approach as well, but for me it's not so much a rule as it is an opition.

 

jk :ph34r:

 

by the way, speaking of the aa's, bill murray got completely robbed in not winning best actor. go see "lost in..." for his performance alone. it was the best that i saw from anywhere all year.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I liked it very much, possibly my favourite film of the last year - although, as I believe I mentioned, it's been a rotten year.

 

I thought it was deliciously understated and rather realistic, sufficiently rooted in real life to mean something to the average viewer even though it was supposed to be about a film star.

 

Great stuff.

 

Phil

[Mitch Gross]

by the way, speaking of the aa's, bill murray got completely robbed in not winning best actor. go see "lost in..." for his performance alone. it was the best that i saw from anywhere all year.

Actually, Ben Kingsley in "House of Sand and Fog" was pretty incredible to me. But since nobody saw the film I was surprised that he even got nominated. Devastating performance.

[Jason Maeda]

it's weird. i thought that it was going to do really well, or at least, really well for the audience they were aiming for.

 

i give the edge this year to bill murray because

a. he truly carried an entire film by himself

b. he did it without a traditional dramatic arc from which to take cues

c. he sort of validated all of his amazing past performances by doing the same thing here, this time without the comfort that comes from working within the genre expectations of the "romantic comedy" etc.

jk :ph34r:

[Bill DiPietra]

Did anyone see "Monster?" Did Charlize Theron deserve the Oscar? I can't really say since I didn't see it, but I did see "21 Grams" and thought Naomi Watts was outstanding.

[Matt Pacini]

Did anyone see "Monster?" Did Charlize Theron deserve the Oscar? I can't really say since I didn't see it, but I did see "21 Grams" and thought Naomi Watts was outstanding.

Well, this is one reason I don't usually bother to watch the Academy Awards.

I've gotten really, really good at guessing the winners.

 

These days, it seems like it's not the best performances that win, (at least in the best actress/actr categories), but whoever is playing the most oppressed character.

Did anyone REALLY think Halley Berry was absolutely brilliant last year?

Pretty good, but the BEST OF THE BEST?

 

Just more politics, if you ask me.

 

And now for something completely different:

 

I wish they would televise the Academy Technical Awards.

Granted, the ratings wouldn't be the same, but it would be nice to see people publicly honored for their acheivments in film, rather than because they're wearing so-and-so's designer dress, or $1 million dollars in diamonds or whatever.

 

Matt Pacini

[Manu Anand]

Saw Lost In Translation and to say the least was a bit disappointed.

Maybe i was expecting way way too much, but to me the film had some nice subtle moments and great observation but somehow it just didn't keep me interested.

I kept thinking of Aki Kaurismaki.

When i saw "The Man without a Past" it totally blew me away, so so subtle, subtle to the point of making you cry and smile at the same time with its sincerity and sense of humour and not for a moment do you lose interest.

i dunno just left me wondering "was that the best script from hollywood?

 

Manu Anand

New Delhi

[Tony Brown]

Didn't like it at all. Looked like they shot it in a week.

 

Thought it was obvious, drawn out, available light photography was ill conceived.

 

Better ending than I feared however - quite suprised I got that far.... B)

[John Pytlak RIP]

I wish they would televise the Academy Technical Awards.

Granted, the ratings wouldn't be the same, but it would be nice to see people publicly honored for their acheivments in film, rather than because they're wearing so-and-so's designer dress, or $1 million dollars in diamonds or whatever.

 

Well, award winners do receive a tape of the entire Sci-Tech awards ceremony. Here's a clip of me receiving my award for LAD from Renee Zellweger on March 3, 2001, and my famous "poem" acceptance speech: B)

 

http://www.film-tech.com/trailers/filmtechpytlak.html

 

The videotaping of the event is professionally done, and each award recipient receives a 2-1/2 hour tape of the memorable event.

[Tim Carroll]

John,

 

Neat video clip. I did not see Renee give you a Oscar statuette. Do you not get the Oscar if it is a technical achievement award?

 

-Tim

[John Pytlak RIP]

The Technical Achievement Award is a certificate, with a photograph of "Oscar". Over the years, Kodak has also won quite a few statues too.

[Eric Steelberg ASC]

Thought it was obvious, drawn out, available light photography was ill conceived.

Respectfully disagree. I think one of the reasons it did well can be contributed to it's look which fit the tone of the film really well. And while some of it was shot available light, quite a bit was lit. I think the fact that it looks as if it's all natural is testament to Acord's high skill.

 

Just my opinion.

[Tony Brown]

Having stayed in the hotel this year, all I can say is the hotel management must have relit the hotel to mimic his talent then.

[harryprayiv]

I haven't seen it, but so far, everyone I've spoken with who has, the opinions have ranged from "worse piece of S**T I've ever seen", to "kinda OK, but not very good".

 

I hate to get political here, but given the typical left-leanings of most of Hollywood, do you think this was a giveaway award, because everyone was so jazzed that:

 

A. She's a woman director.

B. She's a Coppola.

 

Especially since from what I've heard, it looked like it was mostly improvised dialog, yet she gets an Oscar for the screenplay?????

 

Matt Pacini

Are you kidding? I think it's funny when people say that things lean to the left in the media.....it's all controlled by one or two very very right-winged gentlemen. Being in the media yourself, you of all people should know that. I thought lost in Translation was alright, but not the best thing by far.

[Leon Rodriguez]

Congratulations John! Awesome. Loved the poem!

[Ilya Stone]

My vote is.....PIECE O' CRAP. Next question please (you don't want to get me started on how I disliked LIT. I mean, its a racist film for Chrissake! Who does that dumb girl think she is! And Bill Murray's houndog expression is disturbing! How could he do this to me after Rushmore!!.......sorry.)

[Korhan20]

Congratulations John,

When ever i fish around on these forums you always have a very informative post and always provide lots of helpful links. Thanks for taking the time to read and answer all these questions on this forum. :)

[Matt Pacini]

My vote is.....PIECE O' CRAP. Next question please (you don't want to get me started on how I disliked LIT. I mean, its a racist film for Chrissake! Who does that dumb girl think she is! And Bill Murray's houndog expression is disturbing! How could he do this to me after Rushmore!!.......sorry.)

Well, that's my point about the politics of it all.

 

It's not a racist film, because a while male didn't direct it, a female did!

It would only be racist if a man did it.

Seeminly, only men get crap for being racist or sexist.

If you're a woman, any subject matter or portrayal is OK, and your agenda will never be suspect like it is if you're a man.

 

Has anyone ever seen Boxing Helena?

HELLO???

A guy is obsessed with a woman, so he kidnaps her, chops off her arms & legs, and it's portrayed as a romance?

 

Sick, sick, sick, but since Jennifer Lynch directed it, there was not a peep anywhere in the media about how sick and twisted and sexist this was.

 

Hmmmm, I see a pattern here - not only a woman director, but a daughter of a famous director.

Anyway, there just is no way a man could do this without the film being dismissed out of the box.

Probably wouldn't even get made to begin with.

Sorry to be sarcastic, but it's true.

 

Matt Pacini

[David Mullen ASC]

"Seeminly, only men get crap for being racist or sexist."

 

I can't believe you wrote that -- it's, well, sexist! But I guess you're right, because I'm giving you crap for it...

[cal godot]

If you're a woman, any subject matter or portrayal is OK, and your agenda will never be suspect like it is if you're a man.

 

There are very few women (or racial minority) filmmakers in the first place, so any gender or racial criticism of filmmaking in general is going to seem biased against white men, as they are the majority of the trade.

 

But many female filmmakers have been castigated for their films. Lizzie Borden has had her films banned and burned. Alison Anders chooses to make films about women and can hardly get them funded. Even though a man directed it, the woman-written THELMA AND LOUISE was criticized for its "unfair" and "inaccurate" portrayal of men.

 

I could go on with examples of women filmmakers suffering various forms of persecution for their films, but it proves nothing: only someone with a twisted view of reality thinks women possess an advantage in the film industry.

 

Has anyone ever seen Boxing Helena?

A guy is obsessed with a woman, so he kidnaps her, chops off her arms & legs, and it's portrayed as a romance?

 

Sick, sick, sick, but since Jennifer Lynch directed it, there was not a peep anywhere in the media about how sick and twisted and sexist this was.

 

Again, not true. A lot of negative press was attached to this film even before it got made. Kim Basinger, who had verbally agreed to star, very famously paid $8.5 million to get out of the film. This was after the film had begun getting negative buzz for its supposed "violence against women." Madonna had also been offered the role of Helena, but turned it down due to the possibility of the film being perceived as "anti-woman." Sherilyn Fenn was very courageous to take the part, and look where her career went after it (as opposed to Madonna and Basinger).

 

Then there was the ratings controversy over the film upon completion. The film was denied an R rating because of its content. This made headlines everywhere, especially in the trades, amd limited the film's distribution potential. Hardly "not a peep."

 

Here's what Rita Kempley of the Washington Post had to say about the film: "A gruesome tale of obsessive love and mutilation, it's less a work of art, however, than a luridly stylish expression of female self-loathing.... a prettied-up snuff movie." You can't get much bigger of a "peep" than the WaPo.

 

One big reason that feminists never united against it is that the film is a somewhat feminist examination of the common habit that men have of clipping women's wings, a darkly exaggerated version of the traditional male fantasy of keeping a woman tied to the home, not to mention the male spectatorship and voyeurism. It may not be well-executed (a matter of opinion) but according numerous statements from the director, who also wrote the script, this is indeed the intent.

 

That some misinterpret the film as a "romance" which promotes the dismemberment of women says more about the people who view (or more likely, don't view) the film than it does about the film, its makers, or those who saw it for what it was: a perhaps not very well made attempt at dark sexual fantasy with feminist themes. Some even call it a feminist horror movie.

 

Hmmmm, I see a pattern here - not only a woman director, but a daughter of a famous director.

 

Himself the subject of controversy in such matters. David Lynch has been called a misogynist throughout his career for the "treatment of women" in his films. So I wonder about the point behind this statement. Note also that Jennifer has not directed anything since (though she is said to have something in pre right now). SO it's not like she was rewaeded for her derring-do.

 

Anyway, there just is no way a man could do this without the film being dismissed out of the box.

 

Whatever.

[David Mullen ASC]

A woman with industry connections gets a 5-mil (I think) feature made, achieves a moderate amount of financial and critical success for an indie feature, and the knives come out ("she's getting a critical break because she's a woman" "because she's a Coppola", etc.) And you wonder why there are so few big-budget female directors in Hollywood...

 

Has it occured to some of you that people (like me, for example) liked the movie IN SPITE of it being directed by Sophie Coppola, not BECAUSE it was? Just because you didn't like the movie, it doesn't mean that so many others are lying about enjoying it. I don't think critics were predisposed to give her a break because she was a Coppola -- one could easily say the opposite. I think the film was a breath of fresh air at the time it was released and that's what critics were responding to.

[Tony Brown]

I'll have to look at it again - if only to see where $5m got spent.... :rolleyes: