Lost in Translation
Lost in Translation: a Review
Alienation, Othering, and Convenience
Lost in Translation is the story about two Americans seeing themselves in a seemingly different world, feeling lost in the busy, strange (at least to them) world of Japan; yet as the film progresses they eventually find a wonderful friendship in each other. There are two prominent themes presented by director Sofia Coppola in this film: one, the awkward, frightening feeling of being alone in an unusual country and how we act accordingly in that situation; and two, perhaps the subtle, underlying theme; that they are walls that distance us from the other, whether it be a language barrier or a cultural barrier. What do we do to cope with facing these challenges? Is there even an invisible barrier in the first place, or is it created by man?
I believe that it is created by man for convenience, which is evidenced by our need to categorize and make a distinction. In other words, we tend to stereotype because it is easier for us, so that when someone asks us how this certain country is like then we can box it all up and say it in one go, because to most people it would take a lot of effort to delve deeper into another culture. And there’s hardly anyone to blame for this fact; published articles and essays, books, and the mass media all contribute to this practice of stereotyping and it is ultimately up to the person whether she or he will stick to one definition and ignore the context behind certain attitudes and behavior. That is why we cannot say whether stereotypes are a good thing or a bad thing; in the web forum it is evident that the students tried their best not to generalize, but sweeping statements or questions did come up to the surface, and even books for tourists outwardly warn tourists about what they say are Japanese customs, but can also be considered a generalization.
I realized that stereotypes and romantic notions can be avoided as much as possible, based on my experience interacting with various people in the web forum and reading all their remarks and questions regarding the film. At least by talking to a person who has lived in Japan and who views their ways as something “normal” to them, you can be able to determine what is true. Also, it can be true for some places or people, but not true to all. It all boils down to being open to new information, involving yourself more in the culture, and reading between the lines while understanding the context, which includes learning about their history, psyche, traditions, among other things.
Lost in Translation is a film, which is probably the most popular medium and the best way for you to distribute information quickly and being entertaining at the same time. It may be billed as fictional, but the movie house is a hyper-real environment, and nowadays people in general cannot distinguish between the two, and is also very difficult to pry yourself away from it. One of the reasons why we cannot distinguish movies from reality and why it inevitably works better than other visual art such as paintings is that it has a real cast and a real setting, therefore setting up an image that all of the events are fictional, but the emotions and dialogue can have a ring of truth to them. A film also has the better chance of reaching out to wider audiences, for it spoon-feeds information. Very unlike the painting that you see in the museum wherein you have to read up on your history to determine what it’s all about, not to mention that there is more likely to be ambiguity and subjectivity. The scenes in a film are meticulously crafted and edited, so I believe that information is “crafted” in the process.
The movie features a series of carefully depicted scenes, moving visuals, and suggests a situation that is universal - people who are plunging in the depths of loneliness and isolation - and it is probably why it was a touching film for the American critics. What people tend to forget, however, that a movie is also a manipulation of some sort. It may only “suggest” things, but there is power in images and words, and they can stick to the minds of audiences and be deemed as fact, where truth be told it is an interpretation of Japanese society by a single person, the director-writer Sofia Coppola.
This is probably why, in my experience interacting with the students of Sophia University, they were quick to dispel the stereotypical content of Lost in Translation. Perhaps they were quite concerned that that was how the American audiences might view Japanese people as whole - people with insane TV shows, prostitutes with kinky offers, and wild teenagers who spend their time. It is also evident in the film that while Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) eased their lonesomeness by relying on humor and leaning on each other, they certainly kept quite a disinterest and detachment to Japan until the very end. Until the last scene of the movie the audiences feel for the two characters because we have witnessed their sweet relationship coming to a close, that they had to go back to ‘reality’ because what they had in Japan was the promise of anonymity and a chance to be themselves. However, to me they still treated Japan and Japanese people as the “Other”. Of course they learned to go out and enjoy the city life with a few Japanese people, but there was never a defining moment that showed them learning deeper, more meaningful things about the Japanese and their way of life. In a way you can sense that the main characters felt like Japan was interesting, fun, but too different from them to handle, and perhaps it is a hint at what Sofia Coppola thinks as well.
Stereotyping can also be a two-way experience. Even if Lost in Translation contained Japanese stereotypes, I noticed in the web forum that the Sophia students were thankful that the film offered them a look on how Westerners view Japan. Now, we cannot say that a single movie represents what every American thinks, because of course we have to think about their background, experiences in Japan, exposure to the culture, etc. One must always keep in mind that the movie is a single interpretation and must not be confused with a totality, to avoid making broad statements. It is, nevertheless, a legitimate example.
Another major and probably the most apparent reason why Bob and Charlotte felt ‘alienated’ from Japan is the verbal/language barrier. It is where the film got its title, after all, and scenes from the movie always depict the Japanese people as those who have a hard time saying English; with their confused l’s and r’s and other words that sound very funny to Western (and Filipino) viewers. While there is also a problem when it comes to visual communication as opposed to verbal, I believe that they also have their differences. In my case, I find it easier to interpret visual symbols in paintings and such, because even if symbols can take on different meanings they can have a worldwide significance. That is why it is also important to look at the facial expressions, colors, and the functions of the symbol. For example, depictions of the noble Japanese folk in Heian times had blank expressions, because emotion to them represented weakness, and I only had to look at their faces to understand. Of course, one must also read up to gain an even better understanding of visual symbols so that interpretation comes naturally through deeper studying.
I retain my stance in saying that there must have been at least one significant Japanese character in the film, especially if one wants to see it as a way to study another culture. While we cannot avoid stereotyping and misrepresentation, even if a Japanese character gets top billing, I still believe that it would have opened up Bob and Charlotte’s (and the audience’s) eyes and give a more compelling view of how people from different cultures can interact. The Japanese character could have been their “translator” to Japanese society. However, I can see the poetry found in Bob and Charlotte having to explore things in their own eyes without the aid of a Japanese person who can explain things fully, but nevertheless this has contributed more to Othering Japan in my opinion.
Concerning the emotional resonance of Lost in Translation, I can somehow relate to the main characters Bob and Charlotte as a non-Japanese student learning Japanese Art. However, I believe that I would approach their situation in a more positive light. They closed themselves, felt lost, and depended heavily on each other to survive the Japanese environment, but they at least they were rich enough to enjoy the advantages and technology of the country. Instead, they spent most of their time in clubs and generic hotel rooms. I also feel that since I already have a fascination with Japan to begin with, I would have explored more areas not just in Tokyo, really learned their language and talked to more Japanese people, whereas it seemed like they were bewildered by everything going on around them. To give them credit though, I actually had the opportunity to study Japanese culture and talk to Japanese exchange students, whereas in their case they were suddenly thrust into that world. They could have researched beforehand, though, since they knew that they were going there in the first place.
My experience watching Lost in Translation is that I liked seeing the two main characters interact - especially Bill Murray, who has excellent comic and dramatic timing - but I did not learn anything about Japan (that did not know already). I did learn some things, however, by discussing the movie and its implications with the Sophia and USC students in the web forum. That is why I conclude that one of the best ways to learn more about one’s culture is to actually interact with someone who comes from that country or group; that way you can construe symbols and meanings that you can polish through your own research and experiences and avoid the easy mistake of misrepresentation and misunderstanding.
Alienation, Othering, and Convenience
Lost in Translation is the story about two Americans seeing themselves in a seemingly different world, feeling lost in the busy, strange (at least to them) world of Japan; yet as the film progresses they eventually find a wonderful friendship in each other. There are two prominent themes presented by director Sofia Coppola in this film: one, the awkward, frightening feeling of being alone in an unusual country and how we act accordingly in that situation; and two, perhaps the subtle, underlying theme; that they are walls that distance us from the other, whether it be a language barrier or a cultural barrier. What do we do to cope with facing these challenges? Is there even an invisible barrier in the first place, or is it created by man?
I believe that it is created by man for convenience, which is evidenced by our need to categorize and make a distinction. In other words, we tend to stereotype because it is easier for us, so that when someone asks us how this certain country is like then we can box it all up and say it in one go, because to most people it would take a lot of effort to delve deeper into another culture. And there’s hardly anyone to blame for this fact; published articles and essays, books, and the mass media all contribute to this practice of stereotyping and it is ultimately up to the person whether she or he will stick to one definition and ignore the context behind certain attitudes and behavior. That is why we cannot say whether stereotypes are a good thing or a bad thing; in the web forum it is evident that the students tried their best not to generalize, but sweeping statements or questions did come up to the surface, and even books for tourists outwardly warn tourists about what they say are Japanese customs, but can also be considered a generalization.
I realized that stereotypes and romantic notions can be avoided as much as possible, based on my experience interacting with various people in the web forum and reading all their remarks and questions regarding the film. At least by talking to a person who has lived in Japan and who views their ways as something “normal” to them, you can be able to determine what is true. Also, it can be true for some places or people, but not true to all. It all boils down to being open to new information, involving yourself more in the culture, and reading between the lines while understanding the context, which includes learning about their history, psyche, traditions, among other things.
Lost in Translation is a film, which is probably the most popular medium and the best way for you to distribute information quickly and being entertaining at the same time. It may be billed as fictional, but the movie house is a hyper-real environment, and nowadays people in general cannot distinguish between the two, and is also very difficult to pry yourself away from it. One of the reasons why we cannot distinguish movies from reality and why it inevitably works better than other visual art such as paintings is that it has a real cast and a real setting, therefore setting up an image that all of the events are fictional, but the emotions and dialogue can have a ring of truth to them. A film also has the better chance of reaching out to wider audiences, for it spoon-feeds information. Very unlike the painting that you see in the museum wherein you have to read up on your history to determine what it’s all about, not to mention that there is more likely to be ambiguity and subjectivity. The scenes in a film are meticulously crafted and edited, so I believe that information is “crafted” in the process.
The movie features a series of carefully depicted scenes, moving visuals, and suggests a situation that is universal - people who are plunging in the depths of loneliness and isolation - and it is probably why it was a touching film for the American critics. What people tend to forget, however, that a movie is also a manipulation of some sort. It may only “suggest” things, but there is power in images and words, and they can stick to the minds of audiences and be deemed as fact, where truth be told it is an interpretation of Japanese society by a single person, the director-writer Sofia Coppola.
This is probably why, in my experience interacting with the students of Sophia University, they were quick to dispel the stereotypical content of Lost in Translation. Perhaps they were quite concerned that that was how the American audiences might view Japanese people as whole - people with insane TV shows, prostitutes with kinky offers, and wild teenagers who spend their time. It is also evident in the film that while Bob (Bill Murray) and Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) eased their lonesomeness by relying on humor and leaning on each other, they certainly kept quite a disinterest and detachment to Japan until the very end. Until the last scene of the movie the audiences feel for the two characters because we have witnessed their sweet relationship coming to a close, that they had to go back to ‘reality’ because what they had in Japan was the promise of anonymity and a chance to be themselves. However, to me they still treated Japan and Japanese people as the “Other”. Of course they learned to go out and enjoy the city life with a few Japanese people, but there was never a defining moment that showed them learning deeper, more meaningful things about the Japanese and their way of life. In a way you can sense that the main characters felt like Japan was interesting, fun, but too different from them to handle, and perhaps it is a hint at what Sofia Coppola thinks as well.
Stereotyping can also be a two-way experience. Even if Lost in Translation contained Japanese stereotypes, I noticed in the web forum that the Sophia students were thankful that the film offered them a look on how Westerners view Japan. Now, we cannot say that a single movie represents what every American thinks, because of course we have to think about their background, experiences in Japan, exposure to the culture, etc. One must always keep in mind that the movie is a single interpretation and must not be confused with a totality, to avoid making broad statements. It is, nevertheless, a legitimate example.
Another major and probably the most apparent reason why Bob and Charlotte felt ‘alienated’ from Japan is the verbal/language barrier. It is where the film got its title, after all, and scenes from the movie always depict the Japanese people as those who have a hard time saying English; with their confused l’s and r’s and other words that sound very funny to Western (and Filipino) viewers. While there is also a problem when it comes to visual communication as opposed to verbal, I believe that they also have their differences. In my case, I find it easier to interpret visual symbols in paintings and such, because even if symbols can take on different meanings they can have a worldwide significance. That is why it is also important to look at the facial expressions, colors, and the functions of the symbol. For example, depictions of the noble Japanese folk in Heian times had blank expressions, because emotion to them represented weakness, and I only had to look at their faces to understand. Of course, one must also read up to gain an even better understanding of visual symbols so that interpretation comes naturally through deeper studying.
I retain my stance in saying that there must have been at least one significant Japanese character in the film, especially if one wants to see it as a way to study another culture. While we cannot avoid stereotyping and misrepresentation, even if a Japanese character gets top billing, I still believe that it would have opened up Bob and Charlotte’s (and the audience’s) eyes and give a more compelling view of how people from different cultures can interact. The Japanese character could have been their “translator” to Japanese society. However, I can see the poetry found in Bob and Charlotte having to explore things in their own eyes without the aid of a Japanese person who can explain things fully, but nevertheless this has contributed more to Othering Japan in my opinion.
Concerning the emotional resonance of Lost in Translation, I can somehow relate to the main characters Bob and Charlotte as a non-Japanese student learning Japanese Art. However, I believe that I would approach their situation in a more positive light. They closed themselves, felt lost, and depended heavily on each other to survive the Japanese environment, but they at least they were rich enough to enjoy the advantages and technology of the country. Instead, they spent most of their time in clubs and generic hotel rooms. I also feel that since I already have a fascination with Japan to begin with, I would have explored more areas not just in Tokyo, really learned their language and talked to more Japanese people, whereas it seemed like they were bewildered by everything going on around them. To give them credit though, I actually had the opportunity to study Japanese culture and talk to Japanese exchange students, whereas in their case they were suddenly thrust into that world. They could have researched beforehand, though, since they knew that they were going there in the first place.
My experience watching Lost in Translation is that I liked seeing the two main characters interact - especially Bill Murray, who has excellent comic and dramatic timing - but I did not learn anything about Japan (that did not know already). I did learn some things, however, by discussing the movie and its implications with the Sophia and USC students in the web forum. That is why I conclude that one of the best ways to learn more about one’s culture is to actually interact with someone who comes from that country or group; that way you can construe symbols and meanings that you can polish through your own research and experiences and avoid the easy mistake of misrepresentation and misunderstanding.