Lost in Translation - Page 3

HighClassHo · #41 02-18-2007, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassbot

nothing happens. they just sit around and dress up and she tries to get her husband to impregnate her. nothing happens and apparently that is the point. she was trying to show that they were just a bunch of bored teenagers with power.

but that is not how Marie Antoinette's life was. What about all the intrigues?? the affair of the necklace? two of her children dying??

Tangerine · #42 02-18-2007, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighClassHo

but that is not how Marie Antoinette's life was. What about all the intrigues?? the affair of the necklace? two of her children dying??

yeah i heard it starts into the real intrigue in the last 15 minutes of the movie. which makes no sense. obviously its there. why not look into it? is there a real reason to make a movie about the OTHER nonesense?

no one wants to see a movie about bored people's lives. lets be honest. there are stories that are based on putting bored people into situations that they have to somehow deal with. but to watch people being bored? we dont need movies for that. each and every single person knows what thats like, it doesn't matter if you are rich, poor powerless, or the queen of england... its the same. it makes for a shitty story.

sassbot · #43 02-18-2007, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichelleAntonia

i just never can relate to those few people out there who claim that the cinematography,production design,visual fx alone can save a film with no/bad story, acting, etc.

all of those things are meant to supplement the story. they can never be a substitute for it. even documentaries have to abide by some sort of narrative. if a movie doesnt have a narrative, how does it fit the definition? no matter how beautiful, it is just an arbitrary sequence of shots. why not just set everything up and take still photographs?

and yes, what you said about marie antionette is exactly the problem. i found it so obnoxious to purposefully make it dull.

sassbot · #44 02-18-2007, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighClassHo

but that is not how Marie Antoinette's life was. What about all the intrigues?? the affair of the necklace? two of her children dying??

yeah it fucking sucked. and its not her whole life...its like the first three years of marriage. it was beyond horrible. near the end i stopped paying much attention.

sorry to hi-jack this thread.... but i have to talk about her approach, which seems to be the same for every movie. lost in translation worked, at least i think it did. M.A. did not. it failed horribly.

HighClassHo · #45 02-18-2007, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichelleAntonia

that point i totally agree with. her films really ARENT about the story and action..its about how the mundane realities of her characters look and feel...

as for what and who is cinematic...well, it could be a million different things,people, etc. it could be ANYTHING..... but, i firmly believe that the medium of film is what it is (meaning it differs from novels, songs, other storytelling mediums) because it is told through action, through visual action. in a novel, a whole story can be told through a characters inner thoughts, it could be a first person account of everything and anything that person has ever thought, all the people they have ever known...it can all be internal. in a film, you cant do that, you have to SHOW, through action. character is revealed through action and interaction, the plot moves along and turns around on points of action, when things HAPPEN. if nothing actually happens and the filmmaker is trying to get a certain point across through some subversive, subtle means like showing us the character doing nothing, and we're left to try and feel it and analyze it.... then i say that story is better told through a book. as you say, plenty of books tell stories with little action, and they work- because they're books, not film.

no character in a good film ever "thought" or "realized" something to move the story forward (i mean that alone,void of an action associated with it)..they DID things. things HAPPENED to them... does that make sense? being left to see a character aimlessly wander around in a moody setting or whatever it may be might be a good experiment in what kinds of "feelings" the audience will pick up from that kind of scene,film,whatever.... but im betting that the only thing 99% of the audience will feel is some combination of boredom and sheer frustration.

as long as a story is told through visual events, and more importantly, ACTION, it's cinematic. if you wanna make a film about someones thoughts and feelings being stuck in one place alone...well, i personally wouldnt call that cinematic and i would say therein lies the reason hardly anyone would see it or enjoy it. gus van sant tried that with 'gerry'...my god, write a book instead. LOL!

as for a list of films, it would go on and on. any film that can be called good or engaging is about a character/story that is cinematic. that's a fundamental reason why it's good and it works.

you are talking of Lost In Translation like it's Elephant by Gus Van Sant or Mullholland Drive. Those unbearable films when you can totally say that absolutely nothing happens and they are just horrible films all along. They start to question each other and all, and I did see their thoughts, if that makes sense. Like when Charlotte is in the bathtub. I can totally feel her, I know what she's thinking, it's that void feeling of lonely people.

They find an attraction for each other. I think there is even a climax to their friendship, when Chatlotte is mad that he cheated on his wife.

And then the end, SPOILER AHEAD

he tells soemthing to her. We don't know what it is but it's someting and something happens after it. Did he tell her to look for him in L.A.?? Does they get divorced and marry each other and Charlotte becomes a hollywood wife?? Do they have an affair but then drift apart and go separate ways?? was it just a goodbye and nothing else happened??

I think there is a story like any other good film or with structure.

I don't think this is the case with Lost. Things do happen. They are subtle but one character happens to the other. And the story begins.

HighClassHo · #46 02-18-2007, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sassbot

yeah it fucking sucked. and its not her whole life...its like the first three years of marriage. it was beyond horrible. near the end i stopped paying much attention.

sorry to hi-jack this thread.... but i have to talk about her approach, which seems to be the same for every movie. lost in translation worked, at least i think it did. M.A. did not. it failed horribly.

I see

Mother Greer · #47 02-18-2007, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tangerine

no one wants to see a movie about bored people's lives. lets be honest. there are stories that are based on putting bored people into situations that they have to somehow deal with. but to watch people being bored? we dont need movies for that. each and every single person knows what thats like, it doesn't matter if you are rich, poor powerless, or the queen of england... its the same. it makes for a shitty story.

HighClassHo · #48 02-18-2007, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tangerine

yeah i heard it starts into the real intrigue in the last 15 minutes of the movie. which makes no sense. obviously its there. why not look into it? is there a real reason to make a movie about the OTHER nonesense?

no one wants to see a movie about bored people's lives. lets be honest. there are stories that are based on putting bored people into situations that they have to somehow deal with. but to watch people being bored? we dont need movies for that. each and every single person knows what thats like, it doesn't matter if you are rich, poor powerless, or the queen of england... its the same. it makes for a shitty story.

but people seemed to like it. Or was it all hype??

I'll have to see it and judge for myself. I would be so appalled if it's bad because that story has lots of potential. Like you don't even have to get to the revolution, interesting things happeend to her before that would make for a good story.

Is it one of thiose films were the trailer is better than the film itself=?

Manhattan · #49 02-18-2007, 02:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighClassHo

Is it one of thiose films were the trailer is better than the film itself=?

I think you would have to see the movie yourself instead of asking other people what it's like. You may love it.

HighClassHo · #50 02-18-2007, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manhattan

I think you would have to see the movie yourself instead of asking other people what it's like. You may love it.

I love it already just for the trailer.

And I love Marie Antoinette, always have. I'm reading Antonia Fraser's book and it's my third book about her, and I think it's the best so far.

It really is a great story.

Manhattan · #51 02-18-2007, 02:11 AM

All I know is that she was beheaded for being naive. And that Napolaen was her husband and died?

Was she really skanky in real life?

HighClassHo · #52 02-18-2007, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manhattan

All I know is that she was beheaded for being naive. And that Napolaen was her husband and died?

Was she really skanky in real life?

are you serious?? Napolean came decades after her or something like that.

And no, she was not skanky.

MichelleAntonia · #53 02-18-2007, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighClassHo

you are talking of Lost In Translation like it's Elephant by Gus Van Sant or Mullholland Drive. Those unbearable films when you can totally say that absolutely nothing happens and they are just horrible films all along. They start to question each other and all, and I did see their thoughts, if that makes sense. Like when Charlotte is in the bathtub. I can totally feel her, I know what she's thinking, it's that void feeling of lonely people.

They find an attraction for each other. I think there is even a climax to their friendship, when Chatlotte is mad that he cheated on his wife.

And then the end, SPOILER AHEAD

he tells soemthing to her. We don't know what it is but it's someting and something happens after it. Did he tell her to look for him in L.A.?? Does they get divorced and marry each other and Charlotte becomes a hollywood wife?? Do they have an affair but then drift apart and go separate ways?? was it just a goodbye and nothing else happened??

I think there is a story like any other good film or with structure.

I don't think this is the case with Lost. Things do happen. They are subtle but one character happens to the other. And the story begins.

well, i dont know if i said it before or not, but i dont think LIT is COMPLETELY a film where nothing happens...things do happen, but its towing the line. its not gerry, where LITERALLY nothing happens. but in LIT still frustrates in the sense that those things barely register in the cinematic sense. whereas in a book, you can flesh out those events on the weight behind them via thoughts, background, descriptions, etc. here, its hard to grasp the importance of the little things that DO happen because its nearly impossible to SHOW their importance, ya know what i mean? she does a great job of setting mood, but mood isnt gonna carry every subtle action. mood is just that, mood. it's not a revelation, its nothing something suggestive of background, etc.

and yeah, the structure is there. like i said before, academically (ugh i hate that word but i have no other.lol) it could be constructed flawlessly, with perfect structure. but just because something has perfect structure doesnt mean that every story element of that structure is driven by visual action. books have that structure too, and lots of times the 'action' is hardly anything but visual and action oriented.

i think the story that is there, or suggested, could have been told in a more cinematic manner and the movie would've been better in my opinion. but i wont go on and on with my opinion more than i already have here.

HighClassHo · #54 02-18-2007, 02:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MichelleAntonia

well, i dont know if i said it before or not, but i dont think LIT is COMPLETELY a film where nothing happens...things do happen, but its towing the line. its not gerry, where LITERALLY nothing happens. but in LIT still frustrates in the sense that those things barely register in the cinematic sense. whereas in a book, you can flesh out those events on the weight behind them via thoughts, background, descriptions, etc. here, its hard to grasp the importance of the little things that DO happen because its nearly impossible to SHOW their importance, ya know what i mean? she does a great job of setting mood, but mood isnt gonna carry every subtle action. mood is just that, mood. it's not a revelation, its nothing something suggestive of background, etc.

and yeah, the structure is there. like i said before, academically (ugh i hate that word but i have no other.lol) it could be constructed flawlessly, with perfect structure. but just because something has perfect structure doesnt mean that every story element of that structure is driven by visual action. books have that structure too, and lots of times the 'action' is hardly anything but visual and action oriented.

i think the story that is there, or suggested, could have been told in a more cinematic manner and the movie would've been better in my opinion. but i wont go on and on with my opinion more than i already have here.

it's like the scene where she meets the actress with her husband. I think it's perfectly clear what she feels.

I don't get your point. Movies are about action, always. Like, you are not going to make a character say "I'm angry" you are going to show us he is angry. I see that in Lost In Translation. I se what those characters are going through.

MichelleAntonia · #55 02-18-2007, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighClassHo

it's like the scene where she meets the actress with her husband. I think it's perfectly clear what she feels.

I don't get your point. Movies are about action, always. Like, you are not going to make a character say "I'm angry" you are going to show us he is angry. I see that in Lost In Translation. I se what those characters are going through.

you do, but via what? a sad face or an angry face? i mean of COURSE, thats acting, thats a fundamental part of film, to see the character's reactions...but that cant be IT. if they just sit there and they're mad, or sad, etc. it should compel them to DO something, or that stroke of feeling that we see in the character is in a context of some action going on around them...a good screenwriter would usually reveal a feeling via an action, and the subtext of that action. that's all i mean.

again, im not saying LIT is devoid of ANY of this, im just speaking in general here. i just think LIT is dangerously close to that and that's why it didnt really float my boat.

Sonofagun · #56 02-18-2007, 02:58 AM

I watched it and felt like I didn't get it (so many people said it would be totally awesome) and quite frankly I loath the whole lot of you for it.

I do really want to see the last movie Sofia Coppola did though.

Tangerine · #57 02-18-2007, 03:11 AM

im kind of jumping in on the specific LIT discussion here, but i want to say..

stuff does happen. ok it does. but what DOES happen is not dramatic, important, thought provoking, or bold enough. and it doesnt take screaming and crying and bombs and hostages to be bold. but shes not even getting to the low end IN MY HUMBLE OPINION. she spends all this teim setting up atmosphere, mood, the whole lonely stranger thing...... that she ends up relying on it too much when it comes to events, creative situations that will yeild creative reactions... the movie IS the canvas, not occuring in front of it.

as cliche of a word as it is, i feel that what happens lacks 'passion'. and i dont buy that bored lonely people we need to feel like them thing. like i siad before, people who feel that way need only be in movies, if taht loneliness and boredom will be changed into exhilartion or whatever, by the film's end. that takes contrast and challenge. you want to start with bored and lonely in atmosphere and characters? then you need to start throwing in some really UNboring and UNlonely things into the path of your hero and see how they react. after they jump the hurdles for an hour and a half, they will be changed.

a winning finish to bored and lonely involves alot of passion, whether the end is happy or sad. not more bored and lonely until you kind of get to an end that seems ok, well MAYBE these people are better off.....lets guess hmmmmmm. who knows. if thats the case then that to me is the definition of a BORING MOVIE.

thats just my opinion. i wont argue with those who dont agree.

drivelBABY · #58 02-18-2007, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HighClassHo

And I love Marie Antoinette, always have. I'm reading Antonia Fraser's book and it's my third book about her, and I think it's the best so far.

It really is a great story.

i never thought i'd be agreeing with you about anything, but that book is excellent.i just wrote a history paper on an 'individual study' & i chose her so i had to read lots of biographies & articles, and the Fraser book is definitely best - you don't need to read anything else because she says it all!