Lost in Translation (a film by Sofia Coppola) - Retrospective

Written by: Lee Fenton

This article was written during the 2023 WGA and SAG-AFTRA strikes. Without the hard work and dedication of the writers and actors, the movie being covered here wouldn’t exist. In fact, no films or television would.

We stand in solidarity.

Lost in Translation is quiet. It is contemplative. It manages to be more because it adheres to the old adage - that sometimes, less is preferable. Less noise; less explosions, less high-stakes conflict and drama. And you know what? It's a wonderful film because of it.

There will be no off the wall jokes from Bill Murray (you do get a few quips, that's mandatory). Scarlet Johansson does not kick anybody in the face, or wear a skin tight cat-suit. No, instead she turns in a performance that's expertly nuanced in execution, serendipitous through meekness, and highly impressive. As it happens, this film was one of her first roles.

Let's speak on Scarlet Johansson's acting in Lost in Translation:

She competently brings you into her world, where she is a lonely traveler in a foreign land, yearning for some kind of meaningful connection. When Scarlett Johansson is given a property to work with that has heart and a strong internal narrative, ol' Scar-Jo is one of the most earnest actors out there (see Marriage Story, with Adam Driver). Not only does she deliver her lines in a breath-taking and organic way; her facial acting is on-point. Subtly expressive and always conveying emotion for the audience. She's committed to drawing the audience in, whenever she's in focus. And the camera loves to linger on her long after delivery of dialogue, letting you in on her thoughts through those subtle expressions, and body language. This is fantastic visual storytelling and Scarlett Johannson achieves a level of reality in this film that is seldom seen on the big screen. I imagine the director and her worked very well together.

Sofia Coppola directed this picture, in fact it was her directorial debut and she does a brilliant job of showcasing Tokyo, Japan - the setting of the story, and really - a character onto its self. Two souls are lost in a world they do not understand, trying to make sense of their lives and stations, while exploring this new place. The cinematography is eloquent, and succeeds in making the audience feel like the events are happening in real time. Through the use of close-ups and stationary shots that linger and give you an intimate feeling of proximity to the actors, Sofia Coppola gives you the POV of an observer; rather than an active participant in the film. This is an unique approach and works well for this type of film, you are slowly drawn into the narrative opposed to thrown head-first.

The view of Tokyo that is unveiled before you in this film is fully captivating; it's neon splendor, rain-washed concrete, and busy streets are a portal into the minds of our main characters and their feelings of lonely detachment. Both of them are seeking human connection while awash in crowds of people, something that is eerily reminiscent of our modern life. No longer do you have to travel to a foreign land to feel like a stranger, unnoticed - while surrounded by people.

This film fully captures that contemporary feeling of isolation.

Sofia Coppola was convinced by her father Francis Ford Coppola to shoot on film-stock and it really shows. This movie has that beautiful look to it that is only achieved by expert color-grading and lighting. Don't get me wrong, I see the advantages of shooting digital and plenty of movies can utilize new technology to create a polished smooth look that their picture will benefit from. Movies like Lost in Translation however, lose something if done digitally. Quentin Tarantino shoots all of his pictures using film and this is a key part of what has allowed his work to retain its signature feel and look. Ironically, famed director Francis Ford Coppola told his daughter “You might as well shoot film. It’s not going to be around very much longer.” 20 years later it’s still in use, and widely.[1]

Bill Murray was strictly a comic actor prior to Lost in Translation; one of legendary status starring in such films as; Caddyshack, Ghostbusters I & II, Stripes, and Groundhog Day, as well as a slough of others. Murray's portrayal of Bob Harris is restrained yet he manages to steal the focus in enough scenes that you’re aware he's still the comic genius you know-and-love, and of course possesses his iconic charm. This is an inspired casting choice considering the meta-textual commentary about Bill's career at the time.

His character; Bill Harris, a past-his-prime actor (washed-up seems too harsh) is a reflection of Bill Murray's career and his inability to find relevance in the modern era. This is not to say that the character is based off him but rather that it is a vehicle for this aging actor, who was once a household name but is now fading away. As even the brightest stars tend to do. If you were a childhood fan of the movies that Murray helped to pioneer, you will most likely find solace in the fact that he is still acting and seeking smaller, more intimate pictures to lend his talent to. He is a favorite of Wes Anderson’s, sporting a leading role in most of the director’s highly acclaimed pictures. This has been the case ever since his first film (Rushmore) featured Bill Murray as the villainous dean - since then Murray has appeared in a total nine Wes Anderson films, including but not limited to The Grand Bhudapest Hotel, The French Dispatch, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and The Royal Tenenbaums.

I have spent some time discussing the acting in this film, as well as the cinematography and directorial choices.

Other reviews of mine - only touch on the acting lightly; this is due to some films requiring a discussion about other aspects of filmmaking. Cinematography (visual influences), production of the sets and action set-pieces, Special FX (Visual/Practical/CGI), faithfulness in adaptation/reboot/update, screen-writing, fight choreography, etc. I tend to discuss the most controversial or iconic parts of the film, while trying to work within the constraints of a 500 – 700 word review. From time to time we will be releasing articles that are in the format of an 'in-depth study' of an actor of relevance that we choose. This will be a format that allows for a deeper dive into an actor's filmography, influences, methods, talents, and biography.

I suppose this was a mix of the two; a movie review with some in-depth discussion on the actors. This review worked out to approx. 1200 words so you can imagine the size of a review focusing on other aspects of filmmaking. In the future, I feel the two differing formats will allow for a more well-rounded conversation on all topics involving the craft.

I do hope you take the time to watch Lost in Translation, as well as some of Sofia Coppola's other works (New York Stories, The Virgin Suicides, Marie Antoinette, and A Very Murray Christmas). She has a unique approach to her craft, and only makes a select few films; with a clear vision - that she translates effortlessly to the screen.

Instead of employing cheap gimmicks, she strives for substance in an industry that seldom promotes it, managing to live up to her family name.

And that name just happens to be Coppola. 

So, yeah.

Rating: 9.5/10

A tumbler full of fine Suntory whiskey and sushi in Daikanyama. Fresh ingredients, nice ambience.

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/69324/15-found-facts-about-lost-translation 

1Source for Francis Ford Coppola fact ( advice given to Sofia about shooting on film)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sofia_Coppola

also check out this blog I found, it's specifically about Sofia Coppola, thought it was worth a mention http://www.iwanttobeacoppola.com/