Lost in Translation
|
List Price: Our Price: $2.23 You Save: $12.75 (85%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: DVD See more DVD releases |
|---|
Canada
Movie Reviews of Lost in Translation
Movie Review: Sofia's Choice
Summary: 5 Stars
The opening shot is of Scarlett Johansson, but it's influenced by a painting by John Kacere, whose painting shows up later in the hotel. Actually, it is a shot of a certain portion of Scarlett Johansson's anatomy. Not bare, though. No, that would be gross. Not exactly her torso... lower... lower... there. The other side, now. Flip it over. That's it. Scarlett Johansson was reluctant to film this scene, but Sofia Coppola, the Director, modeled how the shot would look; and then she agreed to do it.
This anecdote has me convinced that Sofia Coppola felt a strong identification with the main character. As a Director Sofia Coppola is willing to go that extra mile. Charlotte IS Sofia; but instead of John (Giovanni Ribisi), the photographer, it was her former husband, Spike Jonze, the director. He directed Cameron Diaz in Being John Malkovich, and perhaps Sofia felt kind of neglected, just like Charlotte--though Coppola denied the connection in an Entertainment Weekly interview.
I know that writers use their own personal experience, and yet they change it, and they are not accountable for any similarity to any persons, living or dead. Especially themselves. But how many thinly veiled autobiographical first novels has the world seen?
So, if Charlotte was Sofia, Kelly (Anna Faris) was Cameron, and John was Spike, who was Bob Harris? Who was the older gentleman that she had the Platonic Affair with? Was it John Malkovich? Really? John Malkovich?
Why then, did she insist on casting Bill Murray, and only Bill Murray? Bill Murray doesn't even have an agent, and if anyone wants to hire him for anything, they have to leave voice mail on a number that he rarely, if ever, even listens to. Sofia left hundreds of messages for him. She flew to Japan to begin filming, and still she hadn't heard back from Murray. If he didn't show up, she was prepared to shut down the production. It most likely wasn't Bill Murray in real life, but Sofia knew that Bill Murray was the only one who could do the part justice. Unless it WAS Malkovich in real life, and she cast Malkovich. But that would blow her cover.
The Japan in Lost in Translation was lost in translation. I think that all the Japanese stuff was merely an extended metaphor for feeling alienated from your environment. Like The Vapors song, Turning Japanese, it was a metaphor for something else. Japan is an interesting backdrop, but I think the movie is really about Bob and Charlotte. Karaoke and the neon lights of Tokyo are an interesting backdrop, but Lost in Translation is not about Japan, per se.
If I can go off on one tangent per review, then I'd like to interject that Sofia Coppola is not David Lynch's daughter, and she did not make Boxing Helena. You take two famous directors with daughters, both trying to break into Hollywood as directors, and it is perfectly understandable that you might get them mixed up. But they are two distinct personalities. So don't blame Boxing Helena, one of, if not THE worst movie ever made, on Sofia Coppola (by the way, does anyone know where I could get a copy of boxing Helena?).
Bob: Can you keep a secret? I'm trying to organize a prison break. I'm looking for, like, an accomplice. We have to first get out of this bar, then the hotel, then the city, and then the country. Are you in or you out?
Charlotte: I'm in. I'll go pack my stuff.
Bob: I hope that you've had enough to drink. It's going to take courage.
Bob Harris is brilliantly played by Bill Murray, and Bob's interactions with Charlotte/Scarlett are sublime. It is no wonder that Bill Murray was Sofia's choice. Every detail of his character rang true. Frédéric Chopin's "Fantaisie Impromptu" in C sharp minor, Opus 66 is the ring tone on Bob's cell phone. Murray played well not only with Johansson, but his constant befuddlement with the strange Japanese environment was quite entertaining.
Bob: I don't want to leave.
Charlotte: So don't. Stay here with me. We'll start a jazz band.
Anna Faris as Kelly was a brilliant caricature of Cameron Diaz. Kelly is ignorant and proud of her ignorance. Cameron Diaz might not really be that thick, but if you were a neglected newlywed, it might seem like Diaz was your nitwitted nemesis, Kelly. Especially if your husband was directing her in Being John Malkovich while you were on the sidelines worrying. Charlotte is bothered by people like Kelly because Charlotte is smart, but she has yet to figure out what to do with her intelligence. Unless she can bring it out in some tangible form she will constantly be upstaged by those with little substance but a more dazzling surface--the Kellies of this world.
For Sofia, the answer was to direct films. That would show Spike Jonze, Cameron Diaz, and most of all, her father, that she had a head on her shoulders. Too bad she had to make Marie Antoinette, and reverse that decision.
The Bottom Line is that Sofia Coppola managed to direct a wonderful film, drawing on her own experience, but translating it into terms we all could understand. She told her story, and it was not Lost in Translation.
Kelly: But listen, let's all go out for a drink sometimes. Yeah?
John: Yeah, yeah.
Kelly: You know, call me, okay?
John: Yeah, okay.
Kelly: Alright. Listen, I'm under Evelyn Waugh. Shh, okay?
Charlotte: [after Kelly leaves] Evelyn Waugh? Evelyn Waugh was a man.
John: Oh, come on, she's nice. What? You know, not everybody went to Yale. It's just a pseudonym, for Christ's sake.
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008) Scarlett Johansson was Cristina
Marie Antoinette (2006) Directed by Sofia Coppola
Match Point (2005) Scarlett Johansson was Nola Rice
Brokeback Mountain (2005) Anna Faris was Lashawn Malone
The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou - Criterion Collection (2004) Bill Murray was Steve Zissou
The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) Scarlett Johansson was Birdy Abundas
Boiler Room (2000) Giovanni Ribisi was Seth Davis
Hamlet (2000) Bill Murray was Polonius
The Virgin Suicides (1999) Directed by Sofia Coppola; and Giovanni Ribisi was Narrator
Caddyshack (1980) Bill Murray was Carl Spackler
John: Why do you have to point out how stupid everyone is all the time?
Movie Review: Sweetly poignant and wistful tale of a passing friendship
Summary: 5 Stars
This is a wonderful movie, gently funny, and full of subtle little touches and terrific acting. It's not the best movie of all time, but very well crafted, and IMHO, deserved its Best Original Screenplay Oscar award for Sofia Coppola.
The customer reviews of this movie here are really divided. I liked it a lot, but I can see why some people hate it.
Why do people hate it? Well, basically, "Lost in Translation" has none of the standard beat-you-over-the-head thundering action sequences, no stunning computer graphics, no highly detailed futuristic/fantasy worlds, no hot sex, no violence, no plot twists, no grand themes of good vs. evil, or the end of the world. In fact, there is not much dialogue, and only the faintest wisp of a plot as the movie takes on a format that is more akin to a "Frontline" documentary or travelogue. The most common complaint thus seems to be "Nothing happens in this movie!" (That was my teenage daughter's epithet for this movie).
A sense of loneliness and being unstuck in time pervades the mood throughout this movie, probably another real downer for people looking for something uplifting to watch. Although the movie is about a relationship between a man and a woman, this relationship fails to follow the standard Hollywood romantic plotlines - a conventional boy-meets-girl love story or "chick flick" this DEFINITELY is not (and believe me, I have been dragged to enough of these). As many women seem to have written in saying that they hated this movie as loved it.
And so, none of the basic formulas of the standard modern day Hollywood movie are present.
Why do people like the movie? I think, first and foremost, the two characters of Bob and Charlotte and their situation have to appeal to you. One has to be able to have an understanding and empathy for their sense of loneliness and being unstuck in time, and also be able to share in their mutual joy at finding each other and being able to share in this brief friendship while traveling in a strange land. One also has to be able to understand their mutual respect for each other's boundaries, and not wanting to mess up each other's lives while together for such a brief period of time, in order to be able to appreciate, rather than disdain, the fact that they do not start having sex with each other, like so many conventional movie plotlines.
Yes, coming from somebody who's favorite other movie is Conan the Barbarian (read my review!), you might wonder what the common thread is between the two movies. Well, there is none. Despite being a very direct, goal oriented, and driven person, and despite being a great fan of the usual Hollywood fantasy- sci-fi -action adventure CGI superhero movies, I also have wonderful memories of many friendships with women, none of whom were or became my girlfriends or lovers. And so watching this movie brings on an intense feeling of déjà vu; I can almost see the movie and relate to it with my eyes closed.
I would disagree with those who say that this movie was about finding your soulmate. I never got the feeling from this movie that Bob and Charlotte were 100% compatible, that they were engaged in a mind-meld, that they came to understand each other's psyche so well that they fit together like spoons, or that they had this burning desire to abandon their spouses and spend the rest of their lives together. No, this movie was just about two people who, by chance, had an opportunity to step out of the rigid mold of their regular lives and really enjoy each other's company for a brief moment in time. And then, through the same set of circumstances, they are parted again. They are together so briefly that they never get to know each other well enough to find out whether they would have made it as a long term couple. And that is what is so poignant and wistful about the ending of this movie - the sense of wishing for more, the sense of what if. But then again, better to not ruin this beautiful friendship by having sex and trying to live together.
I was fascinated by the interaction of Japanese and Americans in this movie; some people thought this was a racist movie, with so much making fun of the Japanese habit of getting r's and l's mixed up when speaking English. Well, there was a lot more subtle cultural stuff going on than just the language problem in this movie. In the context of the whole movie, I did not think that the language problem was overblown - this really is just how most native Japanese mash up English (just like Americans mash up other cultures' languages). Most native Japanese, I think, have enough confidence in the strength of their own culture to not feel embarrassed about this, just like Americans don't feel embarrassed when speaking another language badly. This movie was filmed, after all, in Japan, with a large number of Japanese working in the crew and cast of the movie. The reviewers who thought this movie was racist all seemed to be from outside of Japan (I haven't found one that came from Japan yet, and in fact, Sofia Coppola seems to be rather admired in Japan), and, I think these reviewers mainly have individual problems with white American cultural hegemony and insensitivity rather than what is actually in this movie.
Bill Murray is terrific in the role of Bob Harris. This is a mature actor in his prime, not the cynical jokester Bill Murray of old. I was a bit surprised by Scarlett Johansson. Her acting is terrific. With all the hype in the news media about Johansson's beauty, Sofia Coppola's natural, unvarnished portrayal of her in this movie was the surprising part. Very little make-up, revealing the small moles on her face, and in some close-up scenes the natural color of the roots of her hair. Some unkind people have written reviews mentioning a fat butt, but this is only if you like anorexic women, I suppose. Johannson is a lot shorter than I had thought, but well along the lines of, shall we say, a classical beauty, like Botticelli's Venus.
The movie ends beautifully. Bob is set to return to America. He really wants to say good-bye to Charlotte, but is thwarted twice, first when she is not in her hotel room when he calls, and then again when Charlotte catches up to him as he is leaving the hotel. By then, Bob is surrounded by his Japanese hosts and you can see how their presence suddenly throws up an unbreachable wall between him and Charlotte. Watch their faces in this scene, you can see the tension, and then the pain in Bob's eyes, and the look of slight hurt and puzzlement, and then finally detachment, in Charlotte's face, as Bob gives Charlotte only the most cursory of cool good-byes while his hosts look on intently.
I'll stop here, since I don't want to completely give away the ending of the movie, or get this review dropped by Amazon.com again. The final scene as Bob finds Charlotte again on his way to the airport is a terrifically poignant ending, full of mystery and an unspoken loss and wistfulness that comes only from the parting of a great friendship between a man and a woman.
In our modern day world, fast-paced, and incredibly mobile and transient, such passing friendships happen altogether more commonly; few of these friendships lead to the sort of romances written into Hollywood movies of today. "Lost in Translation" is that rare movie which addresses this theme from every day life realistically, faithfully, and poignantly.
Movie Review: Not Losing Translation After the Hype
Summary: 5 Stars
Perhaps the key to liking this movie is to be patient. By the end of the movie, I was convinced that Sofia Coppola deserves every accolade she gets. It is her patience in letting this story tell itself through well-paced action and stingy dialogue that lends such a deep palette of emotional color to the movie. As a writer, she shows a discipline of concision that T.S. Eliot could only get from his friend and part-time editor Ezra Pound. As a director, she allows the camera to dwell long enough on every situation to extract a high degree of clarity, and manages the actors' looks and positions to beautifully complement and emphasize their great ability to show emotional depth. I was truly impressed with her abilities as both a screenwriter and director.Coppola's exploration of viewing as a trope is a powerful element of the film. She beautifully juxtaposes her highly visible characters with their feelings of inconsequence. She accomplishes this through her slowly revealing narrative and rich cinematography. As affluent white visitors, they are easily seen in Tokyo. In Bob Harris's case, not only does his fame attract attention, but so do cinematographic elements like his wardrobe (the clips on the back of his tuxedo jacket) and the composition of his height in shots like the elevator scenes. For Charlotte, it is her beauty, marriage to a globe-trotting photographer and familiarity with New York and L.A. lifestyles that marks her. The camera's attention to her half-clothed body from the title scene to near the end establishes that these characters' visibility is an intimate one for the audience. The pervading close-ups of both characters reinforce a high degree of audience voyeurism.
It is with this understanding of viewing as a powerful trope in the movie that the title becomes so meaningful. Translation is, of course, a form of viewing the unfamiliar. And whether the translation is being done by one person or through an intermediary, the existence of the untranslatable is always a moment for introspection. The incomprehensibility of a statement or emotion (or any sign) calls into question the mental and emotional faculties of the person who is attempting to translate. Bob Harris is intensely interested in accurate translation, as his scene shooting the whiskey commercial attests, but so often, as with his relationship with his wife, he tires of translation's inherent difficulties and comedically capitulates. His coping mechanism shuts off introspection. Charlotte, on the other hand, is just coming to grips with translation as a mode fraught with difficulty. She copes by trying again and again, whether by visiting monasteries in attempt to "feel" something or by trying to find a profession. Her coping mechanism invites introspection. By combining these two characters, at two very divergent points in their lives, with opposite ages and genders, sharing a common daily alienation of translation and introspection, Coppola creates a dynamic narrative that reveals itself in silences and incremental emotional clues that the characters give one another through looks and touches. It is clear what gets translated effectively: their emotional connection and affection for one another. Certainly the mode of showing affection to one another is more difficult for them to translate, and the ebb and flow of restrained sexual energy is positively mastered by Murray and Johannsen. But Coppola reveals that what is truly lost in translation are the closest relationships we all share with our loved ones. The most over-translated relationship is that with the spouse, where meaning is truly glossed over.
Coppola gives us two distinct modes of spousal mistranslations. Bob's is a subtle one, where 25 years' worth of translated meaning resides in the spoken and unspoken relationship-weighing on Bob so heavily that only mundane discussions can be tolerated. These subtle mistranslations act like smooth rocks-they do not cause noticeable turbulence alone, but if considered as a whole, can divert a river of meaning between husband and wife. Charlotte's lost translation with her husband is still new, a product of projecting desires onto one's spouse, which they both do. And while their spouses are both strikingly absent, their alone time, their time of introspection, is spent translating who their spouses are and why they are with them. Interestingly, Charlotte's experience of the Tokyo world (which is concentrated in her sexual energy) is as subtle and inscrutable as the cause of the mistranslations in Bob's marriage, while Bob's experience of the Tokyo world contains glaring mistranslations that mirror Charlotte's marriage. It is therefore no surprise that they are attracted to one another. Even Bob's infidelity with the laughable lounge singer doesn't destroy a relationship based more on unconscious soulful affiliation than surface attraction.
Let's hope Lost in Translation doesn't get lost in the hype. Is it groundbreaking? I think so, but not in the way one might expect. From Greek tragedy to today, we have touchstones of human emotion like hubris, anger, jealousy and humor. This movie has somehow evaded the predictable reduction of many movies to these emotional touchstones. This is not "older man meets younger woman and they escape moral turpitude by not consummating their affection." It is an emotional landscape of shared introspection that could only happen so clearly on the screen because of their isolation, visibility and, paradoxically, their opposite situations in life. Their own moral codes interact with the foreign and liberal atmosphere of Tokyo as a party town in a way that resists easy reduction into good/bad, folly/wisdom. They both learn from the other's revelation of thoughts about himself or herself. The audience is given the ability to experience the space of shared introspection and the doubts and triumphs that it entails. Thank you to Sofia Coppola for bringing us a movie that does something different and meaningful.
Movie Review: SWEET DILEMMAS OF LOVE IN THE THROES OF CULTURAL DISLOCATION
Summary: 5 Stars
"Lost in Translation" joins the rank of surreal films that depict life and emotions with such understated fluidity that they fall short of satiating typical Hollywoodesque tastes. "About Schmidt" was one. Coen brothers' "The Man Who Wasn't There" was another.
There is little I can add to all the other reviews already here, but I'll focus on addressing the various misconceptions that all the encomium surrounding this minimalistic gem from Sophia Coppola (with the usual baggage of expectations) has given rise to:
(1) SHOWS JAPAN IN A POOR LIGHT, OR POKES FUN AT THE CULTURE
No it doesn't. That sounds like a boorish remark from people who stopped by Tokyo for a couple of days, had Ramen at Ginza and Toro at Shimbashi, sipped a double Latte at Shibuya's Starbucks, and assumed that they had discovered Japanese culture. I still have to see a more accurate rendition of Tokyo's true day-to-day existence than this movie, apart from Tom Selleck's "Baseball" a few years back. Yes, the real Tokyo does have mispronounciations of words like "Flight" (as in, "Have a good fright".) Yes, real translators shorten a good deal of Japanese when interpreting as long as the message is communicated. Most of my Japanese friends would simply laugh along when told of such common trivia. This movie is as much a caricature of Japanese culture as "Patton" or "Sex and the City" are of American culture. (P.S. Murray's character also has a pretty funny remark in the film in answer to the question, "Why do Japanese interchange their Rs and Ls?"). The film is mis-sold as being a movie about Japan, the cultural takes are comic garnish, not elemental to the romantic plot.
(2) IT IS A MEANINGLESS DRAWL, PACED VERY SLOW
Sure, if you have the attention span of a rodent in a cheese store. I found the flow of the movie very pleasing, but then I am guilty of enjoying the likes of "About Schmidt" as well. It's a simple, beautiful, efficient story that is completely and utterly engrossing, with economy of cinematography. It is also just a shade over 90 minutes long, making it quite short in comparison to typical movies of today. But in that short span of time, you experience a dampening feeling of entrapment, a sense of longing (and belonging), you are privy to the story of two people who are lost spiritually, emotionally, and physically.
(3) TRIES TO BE ARTSY AND FAILS
Was it artsy? I am not sure. I surely did not feel that it was pretentious. Why can film not mirror our lives and experiences without shocking or over-embelishing, and still be looked at as a remarkable and moving artform? There is a lot in the movie that perhaps may not hit a nerve with people who expect to be hit on the head with meaning. For instance, there is an overhead shot when the two protagonists were in one of their hotel rooms, in bed talking, fully clothed, he is on his back staring at the ceiling, she is on her side, eyes probably closed, the tips of her feet barely touching the side of his leg, and he moves his hand and puts it on her feet. Then the scene fades to black. It is the kind of tender, non-sexual touch that tells us how close they have become, and that theirs is a relationship of mutual trust and admiration, not one necessarily of lust. I guess this is not for everyone to appreciate.
(4) NOT THE USUAL FUNNY CAMEO FROM BILL MURRAY
Negative. I found Bill Murray to be extremely hilarious in this movie, and while this may sound arrogant, he is funny in a "mature" sort of a way. Like a man who doesn't have to try too hard. In fact, one thing that hits you about Coppola's direction is the honesty in the story telling. You will feel the utter frustration that Murray's character must have felt trying to make sense of a photographer giving directions with pidgin English, for instance.
(5) IT'S NOT ABOUT ROMANCE
Perhaps Titanic was then. The chemistry between the two lead characters in Lost in Translation is very moving, I'd even say it is one of the most wistful, effortless and understanding romances I have seen in a long time in film, the variety only the ilk of Anthony Hopkins and Emma Thomson could evoke in an Merchant Ivory production. The very fact that these two characters find themselves groping in the middle of an alien culture brings them together and brings to the surface their similarities -- not only as people, but their similar station in life.
(6) THERE'S NO PLOT!
Right, there isn't. That's the point. I could sit here for an hour and enlist stunning movies that did not pander to an audience that necessarily needs a "plot." It's about a life-changing week in the lives of two people, simple as that. This may or may not work for you.
(7) IT'S ALL ABOUT COPPOLA / FEMALE DIRECTOR / ETC.
This one is the most inane. Let's talk of the film on its merit, leaving all the heritage behind. I didn't care much about The Virgin Suicides, but I have now come to admire Sophia's talents at synthesizing visual, spatial, and sonic impressions. Oodles for film students to learn from!
I adore this glorious masterpiece, and highly recommend it --
(1) If you're not expecting a pedestrian American Pie style comedy with situational goofs and gaffes
(2) If you enjoy a fluid screenplay, like About Schmidt or Royal Tenenbaums
(3) If you want to know the day to day life in Japan, not cultural stereotypes strewn about by populist productions like The Last Samurai
(4) If you relish unspoken romances like "Remains of the Day", "A Room with a View", "One True Thing", "The Road Home"
(5) If you, like me, understand why the title is so wickedly clever. It's not just the meaning of language that is "lost in translation." It is a simple, pithy statement that beautifully captures the essence of everything that we struggle to "find"
This DVD belongs in any self-respecting library.
Movie Review: Marvelous - subtle, moving; one of the great films of 2003
Summary: 5 Stars
I saw Translation for the first time and liked it, but didn't really know what they saw in the movie that was so beyond-belief spectacular. But alas, I believe that every movie deserves a second chance, so recently I sat down and experienced director Sophia Coppola's Lost In Translation again. Lost in Translation tells the story of Bob Harris (Bill Murray in a role tailor-made, if not even Heaven-sent for him), an American movie star that comes to Tokyo to film a whiskey commerical for which he will be paid 2 million bucks. Staying in the same Tokyo hotel is Charlotte (Scarlett Johanssen, radiant and mature at only 18), a newlywed tagging along with her rock photographer husband, John (a typically awkward Giovanni Ribisi). Along the way, Charlotte and Bob run into each other and begin a 'brief encounter' that profoundly affects them both.
When the movie hits you right, it's a pure pleasure from its unassuming start (a beautifully lit shot up Johanssen's underwear-clothed behind) to its ambiguous but meaningful ending. It begins as a comedy of culture clash, Harris sarcastic and confused at the Japanese when entering his hotel, and even more befuddled in a hilarious scene where he shoots the whiskey commercial. Coppola delivers Bob into her movie with the impression that it'll be all about him, but Charlotte enters the story, and we're never quite the same. Scarlett Johanssen plays Charlotte with just the right amount of emotion that her initially morose and soul-searching character doesn't seem silly. At one point, she tearfully admits over the phone, "I don't know who I married." Bob, on the other hand, seems to have it made, but Murray lets a current of loneliness run across that memorable face. He gets comical faxes from his wife about bookshelves and carpet samples, but he gives off the impression that he's come to the point where he doesn't even care anymore. Bob is certainly alone for a time in Tokyo, but Murray alludes that things at home aren't too hot either.
For the first third of the movie, director Coppola displays her first brave choice in filmmaking by keeping Bob and Charlotte apart. Upon my first viewing of Translation, I wasn't convinced of Coppola's choice to keep the movie so predominantly low-key, but I've realized that there's a reason for it. The movie sustains this amazing vibe that doesn't stunt its progress, but propels it with a driving fluidity. A few times, though, Bob and Charlotte do see each other without officially meeting. One time in particular occurs in a crowded elevator - the two glance at each other, faintly smile, and possibility is born. The first section of the film doesn't just serve to show its two characters completely apart - it makes you think of how many life-changing connections you've missed in the past by just being passive and solitary.
The two meet and begin voyages out into the hustle and bustle of Tokyo, and the film takes on a perspective that differs from its earlier view. Before, we saw Bob Harris and Charlotte, respectively, at their most private and vulnerable. While out on the town, the film seems to sit back and just let them have fun. Thank God, for Bill Murray's rousing rendition of Elvis Costello's "(What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love, and Understanding" is a blast. During this time, it seems that Bob and Charlotte have forgotten their insomnia and loneliness, but it's not gone forever. Even during their night on the town, we see moments where they sit silently, pensive and confused. The movie is a comedy in some sense, but it escalates into a pervading tragic feel. At one point, Charlotte says to Bob: "Let's never come back here again, because it will never be as much fun." They had fun, but only in the sense of putting off more loneliness.
It takes a while, but the motivations of each character become fully-realized in a marvelous scene where Bob and Charlottelay fully-clothed in bed together. Here, they handle the 'big' questions in life, and not "Where did you go to college?" or "What did you want to be when you were little?" but "What is my purpose?" and "Does marraige get easier?" I was amazed at the honesty of the character's responses. Bob relates to Charlotte the experience of having children and the ongoing struggles of marraige, but a tinge of fear and apprehension runs through his speech. Charlotte hasn't really figured things out for herself yet - she says she's tried just about everything but hasn't found that niche. Coppola's screenplay makes the statement that both are in the same exact emotional limbo. Charlotte is confused and worried, but Bob is regretful and washed-up. In a way, these two are some form of deeply odd soul-mates. That is the heart and soul of Coppola's amazing work.
Translation has great comedic flair with Murray's wonderful work, but it's also perhaps one of the saddest and most moving films I've seen in a long time. It's some form of a romance, too, but it's not about when they'll kiss or when they'll hit the sheets. It also has that Affair to Remember vibe too, where the journey of two souls that find comfort will eventually have to come to an end. Its end, though, defies classification, as does the rest of the film. Coppola simply lets her two amazing leads do the work. When the film does arrive at its final, ambiguous moment, it all just seems perfect. The catchy Japan-pop soundtrack that runs brilliantly throughout the film begins to play, and I find myself with a huge regret: that I won't be able to savor the subtle chemistry of Bob and Charlotte, and that a flat-out masterpiece in American film is at its end.