An Attempt To Describe What Didn't Work in Lost in Translation

    Lost in Translation seems to be a very divisive movie. Reviews from the movie's release and everywhere online seem to be overwhelmingly positive, yet it seems our film class did not like the movie, and I would have to say I relate to being underwhelmed by it. Now I would usually just move on and forget a movie I did not like, but since this is a film class, my job is to figure out what made the movie not speak to me, and figure out what technical elements might have caused me to miss the message and enjoyment of the movie that so many others had. 
    As an amateur film analyst myself, I decided to search for reviews online that might be able to piece together the elements of this film and how effective they were. In this search, I found a review that really was able to analyze everything how I saw it. I'll discuss the parts that struck me most, but the full review can be found here.
    I'd like to start off with what actually worked for this movie, because a lot actually did. First off, the acting of the two main actors was wonderful and effective at expressing the emotions the characters had in the story. They had me really feeling for the characters and the romantic relationship they had. Speaking of, the romantic relationship between Murray and Johansson's characters felt very natural and had me gripped the whole way. The two were really just lost souls who happened to find each other and the joy that came along with their otherwise unhappy stays in Tokyo. I even found myself surprised at how invested I was in their kiss and final meeting at the end of the movie. I want to particularly note the following scene on how genuine the characters felt with each other and how they were able to share such deep feelings with each other, proving just how great of a relationship they really had:


    As far as what doesn't work, the review brings up things such as the slightly racist presentation of the Japanese people in Tokyo, the close up framing of nearly all the shots (Mise-en-Scene!), and the lack of focus the movie's script has. And I agree with all of these things, and I think they combine to form my overall opinion of the movie. I think the last thing, the film's lack of focus, is what made me personally enjoy it less than maybe other people would. The film seemed to be more of a metaphorical comment, just a presentation of a situation of a couple people in Tokyo and them dealing with their struggles. I want to make clear, this is a wonderful thing for movies to do, it just isn't the type of movie I typically enjoy, and that is okay! No movie can ever be for everyone, and the movie still has many positives and kept me invested in the romance and characters' lives the whole time. As an (amateur) film analyst, I think the movie does a lot to help express it's message and display a situation that anyone in the audience can probably relate to.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Look Into the Process of Acting In a Movie

Image
     In the movie that my group made for the fascination project, I was one of the actors in the mini film. It was an interesting and fun experience, and it actually took more thought and planning than I was expecting it to. Furthermore, after reading the chapter on acting in Moving Pictures , it's fascinating to see how many solidified acting strategies that me and my group actually used.      First of all, one thing that my group definitely had was limited time for rehearsals. We really had to just plan our scenes on the fly and do the best we could in the moment to act out the scene a way that best fit the ideas in our heads. In reading the textbook, it's really fascinating to see that's common practice in cinema as a whole, and that figuring out how to act out a scene very quickly is something that's necessary to succeed as an actor. It's also fascinating how my group used the method of blocking without even knowing it was a thing. We just naturally pla...
Read more

A Praise For Anti-Heroes

Image
     In the reading for the week on narrative, I came across the concept of an anti-hero. Basically, it is a form of a protagonist who is not necessarily morally perfect. They have questionable motives and often are complex characters, yet they're still presented as the main character of the story. I think this is such an effective element for a story to have, and personally I love any sort of cinema that has an anti-hero. I think it leads to just more complex characters and therefore more complex plot and themes.     One show in particular that I think has used this very effectively recently is House of the Dragon. The show focuses heavily on a King named Viserys, who seems to mean well, but also makes questionable decisions and doesn't always do the right thing.       There is also heavy focus on a character named Daemon. Daemon is criticized by many people in the show and he definitely can be described as hostile and maybe immature. Y...
Read more

A Praise For Producer McG and Approachability in Cinema

Image
     Do you ever have a moment where you see a person's name listed on your favorite movie, and you go online to look into who this person is, and you come to find out they've been involved in many movies and shows that you love? This is what happened with me when looking up film producer McG. Going through his IMDB page, I enjoy so many movies and shows he's worked on, such as The Babysitter, Love Hard, Holidate, The DUFF, The O.C., and Chuck.     Now there is something all these pieces have in common: they are made to be very approachable. They are mostly comedy driven movies that are meant to be taken lightly and purely enjoyed. For example, look at The DUFF. It's a movie that is meant to be a playful and lighthearted story of a teen girl going through insecurities about her appearance and popularity. Here is a scene in particular that really shows the movie's lightheartedness and willingness to have fun with its creativity:     The film...
Read more