|
Lost in Translation
|
1. Review (2003)
Bob
(Bill Murray) is an actor coasting through his career. Like so many American
celebrities, he is brought to Tokyo (at a fabulous fee) to appear in commercials
for whiskey. Bob is ushered through a bewildering array of photo shoots and TV
guest appearances. In between barking at his agent on the mobile to get him
back home as quickly as possible, he examines the frosty messages from his wife
that snake out of the hotel’s fax machine. In that same vast, airless hotel
resides another displaced American, Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), not long married
to John (Giovanni Ribisi) – and from whom she feels increasingly estranged.
Of
course, as in the classic romantic comedy formula, Bob and Charlotte are drawn
together like mirror images: both their spouses seem soulless and
materialistic, indeed everyone around them seems petty and vacuous – while they
share the spark of a deeper, more authentic affinity, despite their evident age
difference. (University-educated Charlotte is especially withering about Bob’s
signs of mid-life crisis.) But Lost in
Translation offers, in several respects, an unusual modern romance.
First
of all, it is a resolutely chaste movie, in which any eroticism sparely
expresses itself in lingering looks, boozy conversations and the occasional
held hand. Second, it is a realistic and even moral story, which does not bank
solely on the thrill of the fling, but also encourages both its characters and
us to grapple with the complexities of life’s relationships. (A scene in which
Bob movingly eulogises his kids is crucial in this respect.)
Lost in Translation is about what
anthropologists call the liminal experience, poised between two phases of life. Cinema typically evokes the
realm of the liminal in its hormonally-charged stories of teenagers, full of
violent desire and longing for a better world. Coppola brings a slightly
precocious ambience of world-weariness to this in-between state: for her, it is
not about being ecstatic, but about being lost, dazed and confused. (She had
already turned the teen formula on its liminal head in what remains her best
film, the slow-burning directorial debut The
Virgin Suicides [1999].)
In
this luxury hotel – a seemingly airless vacuum underscored by the maddening
low-volume buzz of Muzak and air-conditioning – Bob and Charlotte roam like
vampires, unable to sleep. Their insomnia takes them out into the night streets
for flashes of groovy bars, strange strip clubs and private karaoke rooms. The
feeling of spaced-out, low-key intoxication they share has no relation to
drugs; instead, Bob’s embarrassed, drawling rendition of Bryan Ferry’s “More
Than This” registers as indirect personal revelation.
If
there was ever a film to prove that cinema can sometimes get by solely on the
sheer loveableness of its actors, Lost in
Translation is it. The role of Bob is the apotheosis of Murray’s career. It
brings together every aspect that the actor has laboured, over the years, to
add to his persona: a cynical sensibility, triumphant superiority, an air of
sadness, plus befuddlement in the face of a rapidly changing contemporary
world. Spinning all of that with a perfect sense of comic timing and a camera
which clearly adores gazing at the star’s craggy but still attractive features,
Coppola produces a beautiful homage to an often under-appreciated performer.
With
Johansson, the process is somewhat different – but no less respectful. She is
an actor still at the beginning of defining her on-screen personality, and
Coppola turns that tentativeness and fuzziness into the very definition of
Charlotte’s character. We are given poignant glimpses of the displaced
heroine’s confusion and desperation (especially in a long-distance telephone
conversation with her mother). And, from the stunning opening shot, Coppola
cultivates a casual but rich appreciation of her understated glamour.
Coppola
has made an ingenious career choice with this project. The Virgin Suicides was a complex, haunting piece that placed a
large ensemble of characters within a hyper-stylised format. It is a fine film,
but one that risked imprisoning its director within the school of decorative
cool, showing off her eye for wallpaper and her ear for a great soundtrack song
collage over her ability to tell a solid, classical story. Given its location
and another superb soundtrack assembly, Lost
in Translation does not exactly come up short on cool. But Coppola has
somewhat stripped away the fussiness of her style here in order to squarely
concentrate on a simple, linear tale and on her superb actors. When she does
pull out a self-conscious, aesthetic effect (as in the film’s final shots), its
force is judicious and direct.
Lost in Translation is not a perfect
film, and its spell tends to diminish on repeat viewings. Some of its comic-relief gags are laboured. And Coppola is a little
too fond of using an us-against-the-world equation for presenting her would-be
lovers: where they are special, sensitive, self-aware and funny, everyone else
(such as Anna Faris in an otherwise amusing cameo as the starlet Kelly) is an
uncultured moron. This extends, somewhat unwisely, to the film’s presentation
of everything Japanese: the sense of Bob and Charlotte’s alienation from this
culture is crucial, but Coppola never gets beyond showing it, through their
eyes, as ceaselessly wacky and weird, an easy butt for jokes (especially from
Murray).
Coppola
also needs to refine her grasp of narrative structure: stranded between
Hollywood “indies” and the Euro-Asian art film (Olivier Assayas and Wong
Kar-Wai count among her influences), she keeps the story simple and dreamy, but
does not avoid the trap of repeating situations and leaning heavily on
atmospherics in order to fill out the running time. These flaws aside, Lost in Translation almost manages to
live up to the enormous hype which surrounded it on first release. It is the
kind of film which seeps back into your consciousness when you least expect it
– or when you’re sipping whiskey and listening to Jesus and Mary Chain’s “Just
Like Honey”.
2. Excerpt from
“Empathy Connection” (2005 essay)
Sofia
Coppola’s much-admired Lost in
Translation, set in Tokyo, is a comedy – not least for the scene in which
the local interpreter hired for movie star Bob (Bill Murray) renders long
Japanese speeches in a few cryptic English words, while expanding his English
questions into great torrents of Japanese speech – but it leaves a sour
impression, especially on repeat viewings.
The
key image of the film, in every respect, is the first encounter of Bob with the
much younger Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) in the elevator of the plush hotel
where they are both staying. Their eyes meet – partly because they are both
taller than every Japanese person in the lift. This is a fine “fish out of
water” sight gag worthy of the great romantic comedies of Lubitsch. But it also
sets the slightly unpleasant tone of the comedy throughout – “racist” would be far too strong a word to
describe the many jokes at the expense of the Japanese and their seemingly
inscrutable customs, but it is faintly demeaning.
What
irks here is the assumption that these white Americans, in their touchingly tentative
love story, are naturally going to be
the central focus of the film’s, and our, attention – while everyone else in Japan
can figure as a background mass, as eccentric, local colour. The film offers,
on this level, a striking illustration of cultural commentator Nataša
Durovičová’s take on American monolingualism:
that it “reduces anyone who wants to speak to it into a condition of the
always-imperfect” (Movie Mutations).
Any
attempt at translation – in either the everyday, linguistic sense or the deeper
sense of an immersion in and reciprocal give-and-take with another culture –
is, in fact, conspicuously missing from this movie. A series of vignettes shows
the melancholic Charlotte, who is suffering a marital crisis, wandering about
and exploring the “real” Japan. But these are superficial, picture-postcard
views: a temple, a bonsai plant, a traditional wedding. Even when Charlotte
drags Bob along to party with the people whom she refers to as her Japanese
friends, no communication of any sustained sort seems to take place: it’s all
dancing, laughing, drinking and karaoke. What happens in the film is a fair
mirror of the situation on the set, if the behind-the-scenes extras on the DVD
are anything to go by: there, both Coppola and Murray boast that they learned
scarcely a word of Japanese in their time on the project.
But
surely Sofia Coppola, of all people, is hip to a bigger world than the one
traced by the worst instances of American monolingualism? Isn’t she an
internationalist, tuned into what is increasingly celebrated these days as
global pop culture? Well, yes and no. Coppola is in essentially the same boat
as Quentin Tarantino who, when asked if he had any problems directing – without
even a smattering of Chinese – the large Asian crew who worked on his Kill Bill (2003-4), responded effusively: “No problem at all. I’ve seen a lot of Chinese
martial arts films, so I share with them a certain empathy connection”.
Empathy
connections are not entirely to be sneered at – at least they are preferable,
on the present world stage, to gestures of paranoid or murderous aggression.
But Tarantino’s fantasy of a communication beyond words (nestled, instead, in
the lingua franca of action movies!)
points to a strange paradox inherent in contemporary “globalised” pop culture. Durovičová
puts this well: in the age of Internet, of instant purchasing through Amazon,
and of television stations with titles like World Movies, “the more the world
became accessible, the less it began to matter to access it, other than on our
own terms”. The One World promised by so much pop culture turns out to be a
rather shrunken Western – more precisely, Americanised – perspective.
MORE Coppola: On the Rocks © Adrian Martin December 2003 / October 2005 |