***Official LOST IN TRANSLATION Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Stephen_L]

I continue to find the accusation that the Japanese are portrayed negatively in this film completely bewildering. The only vaguely negative depictions of Japanese are the commercial director (he was funny because he was the stereotypical artist director- unctious, imperial, self-important- not because he was Japanese) and the enthusiastic hooker (yes, it made humor from the difficulty Japanese speakers have pronouncing l's and r's, but it was mostly funny because she was so intensely serious about exciting a man who was just too tired to care) The ikebana class, the little elderly man in the hospital, the Japanese wedding party, the Japanese friends Charlotte and Bob meet on their night on the town, even the Japanese greeters were all treated with accuracy and respect.

 

[Quentin]

I don't know if it's more complex, Lew...but, it's certainly more subtle and usually more artistic in presentation.

I love Japanese food...but, I'll take my Mexican, thanks! Hey, you're in DALLAS, for God's sake. You've got GREAT Mexican food around...

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I think the distinction is between generalizations and stereotypes. There is not necessarily a "Mexicans are short" stereotype to live up (or down) to. The reason it is off-putting is not that it's racist, but because it is cheap and obvious and not necessarily true.

You're kind of supporting the other side's argument here. I'm not sure what you mean by cheap, but evidently there's a more "expensive" of way doing things. With a minimal amount of screentime in LIT, you begin to see the differences between Bill Murray's character and the people that surround him. It doesn't have to be Japanese, it could be any group of people. It still makes him stand out. And it's obvious. So I'm not exactly sure why you would argue for something not-so-obvious.

I understand that stereotypes or generalizations are not necessarily true, but I'm still not sure why it's offending you.

Does that make sense? Correct me if I'm wrong about something here.

 

[Shane Gralaw]

Because the non-obvious is more interesting and surprising. If I wanted to see the obvious, my entire movie diet would consist of Jean-Claude Van Damme movies.

 

[Alex Spindler]

But do you see why we believe the secondary characters are not supposed to be either interesting or surprising?

 

[Shane Gralaw]

Yeah, but I don't see how this makes the movie as good as the hype would suggest. As I stated earlier, this movie didn't do anything for me because it lacked depth and went for the obvious when it could have reached for much more. A better movie, more deserving of the praise heaped upon LiT, would have delivered more than a series of cliched images to establish that the leads are unable to realate to anyone but each other because they are less wierd and/ or shallow than everyone around them. It is contrived. If you like it and can ignore the two dimensional surroundings and get into the central relationship, then good for you. But seeing as how the central relationship is defined by an artificial construct of how (unrealistically) wierd and /or shallow everyone else is, I was distracted and, overall, unimpressed.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Perhaps some viewers are more focused on the trees, while others are more focused on the forest.

 

[John_Lee]

Is there anything of comedic gold in the translation of the attempted conversation between Bob and the old man at the hospital?
I ask because throughout the scene, my attention was drawn to the two ladies behind them who are nearly wetting themselves with laughter. It was a very strange thing to witness.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Is there anything of comedic gold in the translation of the attempted conversation between Bob and the old man at the hospital?
I ask because throughout the scene, my attention was drawn to the two ladies behind them who are nearly wetting themselves with laughter. It was a very strange thing to witness.

That pretty much answers your own question. The scene was layered in that matter. The two ladies laughing was the payoff.

 

[Alex Spindler]

Yes, the old ladies are the drivers of that one.

Should you want to know the gist of what the old man was talking about,
He was essentially asking how long Bob had been in Japan. You can then make out what most of his gesticulations are about.

 

[Mark-W]

As a gay man that reflects just as many of the stereotypical traits as he doesn't, I have to say the whole argument regarding stereotypes in here seems to be presuming that stereotypes are a bad thing.

Why are they a bad thing? Prove it to me.

Unless they are used in a hateful way to prevent someone from getting their bit of happiness and success in life, I don't see how stereotypes are bad.

Hate is a bad thing; Stereotypes are not.

If they were, drag queens would be a thing of the past, so would gansta' rappers, since both feed into the stereotype, which according to some of you, is a bad thing.

People are usually going to exhibit certain stereotypical behavior based on their culture of origin, gender, sexual orentation and on and on....if you deny that then you are silly.

Oprah Winfrey is a stereotypical "strong, black, woman."

Is that a bad thing?

GW Bush is a stereotypical straight, rich, white, male, Republican.

Is that a bad thing?

Melissa Etheridge is a stereotypical lesbian.

Is that a bad thing?


(I would answer "no" to two of those, btw.)

Stereotypes are only bad when you assign negatives
to a person based on their stereotype and how you feel about those stereotypical behavoirs
or when you take away a person's rights because
you apply a stereotype to them mixed with hatred and fear and turn it into sexism, racism, homophobia, or whatever.

How is Soffia hurting Japanese men by showing a elevator full of short Asian men next to a much taller Bob Harris?

She isn't.

Is she unfairly applying the stereotype? No.

This film is all about Bob and Charlotte.
This is NOT an esemble piece like Mystery Train which was a film with much different objectives
than Lost in Translation.

As has already been stated, to make any of
the supporting characters "interesting"
would've defeated the larger vision of the film
and the whole issue of loneliness and isolation
both these people felt.

Gosh, could we say that Do The Right Thing
is a bad film because it reinforeced stereotypes
about African-Amercians?

I didn't see any affluent African-American Republicans
representd amongst all those different characters,
did you?

Boy, Spike Lee better feel bad for not putting
at least one Condleeza Rice or Clarence Thomas
type character in that film.

 

[Eric Peterson]

Well stated Mark.

I think you made the point that I was trying to make a bit more clearly.

Stereotypes are only bad if they bring undue harm to the people that fit that particular stereotype and even then they are sometimes required. Stereotypes are needed in film when you're trying to describe a cast of characters and their entire life's history in 2 hours.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Roger Ebert, in the "If we gave out the Oscars" segment this week, selected LiT as "Best Picture". He even selected Bill Murray for "Best Actor". I know, just one guy's opinion, but there it is.

 

[Peter Kim]

Hmmm,...I've seen Leonard Maltin's review show on tv where his partner also expresses sentiments for a film other than the behemoth, RotK.

Perhaps that and Ebert's segment point to an underlying current among particularly older, traditional Academy establishment welling against the presumed win of RotK? We shall see.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

I think the point (or two)Shane was trying to make (correct me if I'm wrong) is that A. You shouldn't use stereotyping to make cases of differentiation and B. There are alternate, more subtle ways of doing it that would be better (or at least that's what I think he's implying).

This is where matters of perception come in. I like that the obvious differences set up the feelings of alienation the two main characters have. It takes almost no time, and it sets up the rest of the story. Very efficient and not at all time-consuming. In this case, simplicity sets the tone for the rest of the movie. As a side note, I'm not a big fan of skipping steps for the sake of doing so.

I think the depth of that alienation comes from other things besides the obvious. Again, I agree with Patrick's assessment that people are failing to see the forest for the trees (is that the right usage?). There's the not-so-obvious and the really not obvious.

A running motif with films that deal with alienation is physical proximity to those we feel kindredship. There are an amazing number of shots that show this from the bathtub scene to bascially almost any shot of the girl. You can be surrounded by as many people as you want, but if every single one of them is a stranger. It's funny, but I see that Bob and Charlotte are function happily only when they're physically together.

This is where the emotional resonance comes from. You can know that you have friends and family that love you, but if you don't see them, you start to miss them. It's a strange phenomena I'm trying to deal with in the book I'm writing.

This is why you see two foreigners light up with delight when they find their fellow countrymen in the middle of street in Lexington. I know I'm estatic when I see somebody from Eastern Kentucky.

 

[Ted Lee]

are you guys *still* talking about stereotypes? man.....

 

[Patrick Sun]

How stereotypical of HTFers...

 

[Lew Crippen]

 

[Shane Gralaw]

Yep, I think Dome has my arguements about right. And Mark, I think this applies to gay stereotypes as well. Now that you see more well-rounded gay charcters in film, it is easy to forget the old "Mannequin" days of every gay character being an obvious, flamboyant, and swishy stereotype. But check out "Legally Blonde" if you feel nostalgic for the bad old days. You could say that the filmmakers were applying a short-hand so that the audience understood the gay characters were in fact gay, or you could just say they weren't being terribly creative and went for the obvious to get a cheap laugh. I wouldn't say "Legally Blonde" was necessarily hateful, but hate does not have to be your motivating force. Laziness will do.

 

[AdeleW]

A late chime in :

Lew if you want good Mexican food, meet me here in Austin...then we'll drive to San Antonio! (Its better there ya know! )



Again I don't see the stereotypes. I was more interested in Bill and Scarlett's storyline.....