Lost in limbo

He’s a fading movie star in town to shoot a whisky ad and she’s a young rock star photographer’s wife along on a busy assignment. They’re both in the Tokyo Hyatt Regency, bored and lonely and with nothing to do, out of sync with where they are and drifting away from their marriages. (They also don’t seem to have brought along anything interesting to read.) They meet and have a little wistful, unconsummated affair. He leaves, and on the way out they have a few goodbye kisses. Now you know the plot of Lost in Translation. But it's not about the plot.

Sofia Coppola has chosen to make a movie about states of limbo. She’s also made a movie about Bill Murray’s face, which oscillates ceaselessly between serious and comic, famous and forgotten, sexy and numbed-out. Most of the action happens on that face or in the engulfing shadows of the big dark hotel. The sequence where Murray as Bob Harris poses for alternate takes of the Suntory ad, with tiny alterations in his weary eyes and bored voice, is a quietly hilarious tour de force that speaks volumes about repression and anger.

A clip from La Dolce Vita reminds us of the jaded wanderers in Sixties Italian art films that Pauline Kael called “Sick Soul of Europe Movies," for which Sofia may share a nostaligia with her famous father, though Sofia is as restrained in her response to their Italian heritage as her father was flamboyant. Anyway this is 21st century American art. Compare Murray’s face with Mastroianni’s and you'll see how far this movie is from La dolce vita or La notte. The whole “sick soul” thing isn’t philosophical or romantic any more; it hasn’t even got much soul. Sofia has taken Sixties loss of will into the default mode.

We may be in Japan, but this isn’t Antonioni meets Kurosawa; it's Antonioni meets Joan Didion. The movie has flown across time zones to Tokyo dragging a hefty dose of California anomie with it.

There are plenty of exotic images but the cinematography is pretty rather than sexy and conveys a sense of trapped airlessness. Every scenic “escape” from the Hyatt to the brightness of a party, a pachinko hall, a karaoke stage, a shrine, a TV show is illusory: Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) and Bob always wind up back in their sterile rooms with their sealed off city view panoramas and their jet lag. The images rarely breathe. (They're not meant to. This is what being stuck in a big hotel is like.) Once in a while the camera selects cute Japanese guys talking at a party or playing weird video games or something. But this isn't Japan, it's limbo. The reminders of California are constant in Bob’s phone calls home to his busy indifferent wife. It’s even embedded in their circadian rhythms. Days pass, but they’re still on California time. The sense of imprisonment in a great airless hotel is horrible and real. The Regency is a metaphor for Bob's and Charlotte's suspended state.

Japan lends itself to a comedy that is funny at the risk of condescension. The “Japanese Johnny Carson” who has Bob on his show is a repellant little nelly clown. The director of the Suntory ads Bob has come to do for $2 million is a caricature too, a small, noisy, ineffectual man. (Bob is rigorously and sardonically polite with him.) Ditto the courtesan who comes to Bob’s room and says “Lick my stockings,” or “Rip my stockings”: the absurd, unsexy scene makes her seem remote and ridiculous. It's a bit unfortunate that there is nothing so attractive to Bob in this whole huge city as this one white woman he has met at the bar.

The doubts about their marriages are there, but not to become motives for adultery. Bob instead more or less by desperate accident has a night with the chanteuse from the café upstairs, and that’s it.

Bob doesn’t have enough energy to commit a serious infidelity. It’s his spouse who has the position of strength in the marriage: she has her life and the kids and doesn’t need him. She's just a voice, the busy wife and mom at the end of the phone, and she becomes a bit of a caricature, like some of the Japanese.

The movement of the film is droll, but numb. Lost in Translation is a stylish, sophisticated, witty piece of work. It’s appropriately jaded and worldly-wise for a thirty-two-year-old director with a remarkable pedigree. But it's also somewhat lacking in courage because in exchange for all the polish her work has here, Sofia Coppola has paid the rather heavy price of not taking emotiional chances. Nonetheless it’s a very accomplished and by no means unmemorable film.

Murray’s performance is, in its way, an absolute gem, perfectly modulated and, for a comic, almost thrillingly, shockingly recessive. He has spoken in public about his respect for the director and he shows it in his selfless performance. It’s sharply focused, as his Polonius recitation in Michael Almareyda’s Hamlet wasn’t, but he never grandstands. Murray is good, damned good, but not the presence than Mastroianni was. Mastroianni could be pretty vacuous at times, but he won your heart with his charm and sadness. One can almost believe in Murray’s Bob Harris, and one can’t help liking him, but one can’t be moved by him.

There are many good details, but the overall structure isn't the best part of the movie. The final scene with Charlotte when Bob leaves his airport limo to find her in a crowded Tokyo street and exchange a real kiss seems a bit pushed. It’s emotionally necessary to give the movie a conventional tinge of sentiment, but is this gesture quite believable, or even possible, in that crowd and in that traffic? Coppola is such an ironist and a realist that we’re not conditioned by the movie to suspend disbelief as we would if Nora Ephron were at the helm. (It’s both pushed and too easy, that last kiss.)

Funnily – typical of Ms. Coppola’s style which is both unobtrusive and unexpected, Charlotte cries only at the beginning.

What would have been nice is if Bob had cried at the end.

Sofia Coppola already showed with The Virgin Suicides that she could work on a mature almost cult-like offbeat level. She maintains, but doesn’t go beyond that here. Lost in Translation deserves attention and praise for its originality, its restraint, and for Murray’s and Johansson's modulated performances. But it’s rather slight, and not as funny as some people think. Actually, it’s pretty sad. Suicide was more fun.

http://www.chrisknipp.com

"The final scene with Charlotte when Bob leaves his airport limo to find her in a crowded Tokyo street and exchange a real kiss seems a bit pushed. It’s emotionally necessary to give the movie a conventional tinge of sentiment, but is this gesture quite believable, or even possible, in that crowd and in that traffic?"

A bit pushed? I think the ending is one of the most simplistic endings I've ever seen. You say pushed but do you mean rushed? Why is it emotionally necessary for "Lost in Translation" to give sentiment?

"Coppola is such an ironist and a realist that we’re not conditioned by the movie to suspend disbelief as we would if Nora Ephron were at the helm. (It’s both pushed and too easy, that last kiss.)"

Too easy? Both Bill Murray and Scarlett Johanson (spelling?) are in love with each other. They're in love in the way where it's perfectly natural for one to kiss the other, even as both of them are trying to stick to their marriages and at least hope there is some happiness in life. Both of these characters are in the same situations. They love each other but because they're married, they're smart not to have sex, not to say I love you the instant they see each other and especially not demanding anything out of each other.

"But it’s rather slight, and not as funny as some people think. Actually, it’s pretty sad. Suicide was more fun."

I don't find "Lost in Translation" a sad movie at all. I find it a movie filled with hope. The ending is not in the slightest way manipulative. I didn't feel depressed at the ending because I believe it shows that life moves on. Sad movies, if you mean ones that make you depressed, don't over hope.

Mr. Knipp has discover with clarity and path into the limbo of this movie with his commentary critical review of "Lost in Translation." My Japanese American wife put it well when she said that the female translator really lost her clarity in translating Japanese into English for poor Bill Murray while shooting the wine commercial. The director's directions were literally lost in translation and as the whole movie of cultural and time changes suggest, the whole movie becomes one big lost in limbo experience. I agree that something was lost in the movie that makes this movie not the definitive travelogue/drama - the challenges of a strong emotional, compelling drama were left out and we are left with more of the surface experiences of real sights and sounds of life of a tourist in Japan who has time to spend in the more pedestrian parts of the city instead of the camera sight-seeing points of interest.

This is a good point: that Lost in Translation doesn't even really get to the translation, let alone show how meanings are lost. That's why I used the word "limbo." You can't really very well encounter a culture from inside a huge impersonal modern hotel. The Japanese setting is hardly more than window dressing in the film, and this is only one way that "the challenges...were left out." The film is about being in a numbed state, and it leaves us numb.

http://www.chrisknipp.com

I must say I think this may be one of the most questionable films in recent memory. Apart from a high production value and a great Bill Murray this seems to me to be a really empty piece of work. Kind of an extended music video with a laundry list of "cool" paraded before us as if Sofia's own findings. Coppola lifts shots from Rushmore, fetishizes feminine beauty and gawks at the mysteries of asian culture. Perhaps most interesting to me is the celebratory critical response the film is getting. One critic friend of mine suggested that this is a particularly self-satsifying film for middle aged male critics. The notion that there may be a breast inflated 19 year old out there waiting to soul search with them makes it "great, a classic". Oh well. I thought it was flimsy at best. Coppola is enormously popular in Japan, but I imagine no amount of built-in cultural deference can withstand the depths of this one's thoughtlessness.

You may be right, pmw: at least this could be turning out to be a leader of the Most Overrated category for this year, as I felt About Schmidt, The Hours, Far from Heaven (which you loved) and The Road to Perdition were last year. Those look pretty interesting compared to Lost in Translation.

This may be in part a generational thing, as you suggest. You may be particularly hard on Coppola because she is closer to your generation, and you expect better. I don't know about the older man fantasy value in the story but one young friend said the thought of Bill Murray with Scarlett Johanssen was repulsive.

Your reaction seems a bit overboard against, but is valuable as a corrective since not only the critics but most people I know here in the Bay Area can see no wrong in this movie, which I agree is really pretty empty. However I don't want to be so hard on Sofia precisely because she's young; I loved Virgin Suicides (I thought it was charming and precocious) and I hope she'll return to giving that kind of pleasure next time.

Critics seem to have lemming tendencies, don't they? I was very impressed by Mystic River, but aren't the critics just going a little overboard on it, given that it does have flaws? Is there some kind of peer pressure here, when the New Yorker and the New York Times both publish raves?

What this movie does well is style and form but lacks in depth and real internal dialogue. The feeling and the sensation of Japan from an outsider perspective, the slice of life of touring in Japan was amazing and excellent. The avoidance of the normal boy meets girl scenario was also apt and different. Yet never in all these experiential sights and sounds does the audience really get the inner experiences and the existentialist message or meaning of the movie. As I mentioned elsewhere, this movie was a perfect travelogue without a well edited script but is that what the audience paid good movie to see?

Although Chris Knipp states "Lost in Translation is a stylish, sophisticated, witty piece of work" and calls Murray's performance "an absolute gem", most replies above are negative. I was surprised.

Bob and Charlotte are complex, richly defined characters. There's a lot of shading to the characterizations by Ms. Johansson and Mr. Murray. Ms. Coppola's script and unobtrusive direction allow the performers the necessary room to mold and create from the inside out. The arc of their brief meaningful relationship is drawn realistically, starting with raised eyebrows over a horrid rendition of "Scarborough Fair". Small gestures and lyrics pregnant with meaning. Is Charlotte's karaoke choice of "Brass in Pocket" a come-on, a neglected wife's plea for attention, or both? Roxy Music's "More Than This" is Bob's acknowlegment of both the deep human connection they develop and its evanescence. But what does he whisper in Charlotte's ear when they part? Ms. Coppola gives freedom to the actors and freedom to the viewer to interpret, to fill in the blank corners. It's all there in the faces of Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray.

So for me, Lost in Transalation is primarily about a relationship between two likable human beings; one in which age is of minimal import. (The only comment above that rattled me is pmw's critic friend explaining away positive critical response as mere fantasy fullfilment for middle-age men.) The film sidesteps the usual cliches to show the odd pair realistically finding solace, support and joy in being together. A certain amount of sexual tension builds up, but their mutual respect, even gallantry towards each other, wins out.

The film provides some material dealing with the effects of environment on behavior, cross-cultural dislocation, the limitations of communication technology,etc. But that's the icing. Lost in Translation is about what happened to Bob and Charlotte when they met at the Tokyo Hyatt.

I'm glad you quoted my favorable comments. I never meant to say it's a bad movie. It's an interesting one. Sofia Coppola is original and already accomplished. I think I have tended to emphasize the negative about Lost in Translation since writing my original assessment to counter excessive praise in reviews and personal reactions from people I know. Around here, it's de rigeur to love it. No one will hear of reservations. That may be why there's a negative spin on comments about the movie here. The prevailing opinion determines what we say. Likewise with Mystic River, it has gotten such raves from the critics that you have to say wait, this movie has flaws. There's other good stuff out there, or at least let's hope so.

If this movie's audience had been directed towards tourists or business people who didn't have an clear cut agenda in going to Japan or for people who wanted a slice of "real" life as an outsider or for people interested on non-drama of the relationship of two people in a strange country than this is the perfect movie.

This movie has no real drama, no real message...it's more intriguing sensations, experiences, and submerged emotions without any real scriptwriter's need for resolutions to problems. Perhaps this movie would be described as a semi-documentary using real actors to reveal to us what non-actors experience but couldn't really portray (because of all the intrusive camera work involved) in a society that is so different as to require passing solace together in this fascinating but incomprehendible society.

On a whim, I took my Japanese American mother to see Lost In Translation earlier today, meaning that I had the opportunity to see this movie for the second time. I came away surprised that I enjoyed the movie more the second time, more so than I did the first viewing. As with Japanese simplicity, the is an inscrutable depth and complexity to even the most plain perceptions and so to with Lost In Translation, the feelings, and sensations, the emotions, the feelings that exude from the sights and sounds, the music and the acting provide more material for thought and experience rather than mundane and boring. Apparently, there is more to this movie than first glance and the subtlety of the relationship aspect found in this movie is more than skin deep and represents a rather poignant reflection of a slice of more of real life depicted on the screen than the average audience is used to seeing.

Quote:

---

My Japanese American wife put it well when she said that the female translator really lost her clarity in translating Japanese into English for poor Bill Murray while shooting the wine commercial. The director's directions were literally lost in translation and as the whole movie of cultural and time changes suggest, the whole movie becomes one big lost in limbo experience. I agree that something was lost in the movie that makes this movie not the definitive travelogue/drama - the challenges of a strong emotional, compelling drama were left out and we are left with more of the surface experiences of real sights and sounds of life of a tourist in Japan who has time to spend in the more pedestrian parts of the city instead of the camera sight-seeing points of interest.

---

Have you rejected this response completely, or just modified it?

Even though I wasn't really excited about going to see the movie again (I wanted more to impress my mother since she had been to Japan a number of times), I did go and watched it for the second time. When I managed to sit through this movie and not be bored or when the movie didn't even feel slow or tedious, I have to suspect that something more is going on than a superficial travelogue. I read my mother laughing a number of times as well as a number of other members of the audience which felt like there was material that I just wasn't aware of (particularly the Japanese).

The elements of the "strong emotional, compelling drama" that I previously said had been left out were folded and tucked into the quiet behaviors and the subtle emotions implicitly and indirectly layered into the movie (so Japanese-like). What is not evident at first glance, particularly when it comes to Japan is that what really counts is not what is obvious or what is done or said, but what is left out and not said or done (much like Japanese Noh-Dance or the importance of the blank/white portion of a painting that is not painted).

I think that this movie can be seen on two very different levels: (1) - an American first blush experience which allows one to dismiss this movie; and (2) - a multicultural, less directed and expectation perspective which allows one to pick up finer nuances in the movie and appreciate the movie more.

This is my inscrutable Japanese reply.

I'm glad you gave it a second chance. I particularly like your comment "what really counts is what is left out and not said or done". This is what I mean when I said that Ms. Coppola frees the actors and the audience to fill-in the blank spaces (what's not made obvious and explicit). It's all there though in small gestures, song lyrics, voice inflections... The scant evidence(2 films) suggests Ms. Coppola is a major talent. I hope Mr. Murray gets nominated so the film gets publicity and perhaps a return to theatres.

I've gone on record as saying this is a fine film. However, for what it's worth, I have Japanese friends who saw it and didn't think much of it, and like me found the treatment of the Japanese dismissive.

Quote:

---

What is not evident at first glance, particularly when it comes to Japan, is that what really counts is not what is obvious or what is done or said, but what is left out and not said or done (much like Japanese Noh-Dance or the importance of the blank/white portion of a painting that is not painted).

---

Interesting concept, but I think you're forgetting here that this is an American movie. Sofia Coppola is not a Japanese director. Give the movie a second chance; it deserves it. "Major director"? That remains to be seen. This is beginning to sound more and more like the Emperor's Clothes to me. Let's not give her too much credit for what is not there. Understated, sure. To a fault. Not a Japanese movie. We're not discussing Ozu here!

I don't think one can consistently use statements that:

1) Some Japanese don't like the movie and then at the same time,

2) It's not a Japanese movie.

Why on earth not? I don't see the contradiction. It's certainly not a Japanese movie. It was made by Americans and stars American actors. And of course some Japanese don't like it. I don't get your point. This is not having anything both ways.

The opposite would be ridiculous: that all Japanese like it and that it's a Japanese movie.

Am I missing something here? Are we through the looking glass?


www.chrisknipp.com

On the one hand you say that you "have Japanese friends who saw it and didn't think much of it, and like me found the treatment of the Japanese dismissive" and then you say that "but I think you're forgetting here that this is an American movie. Sofia Coppola is not a Japanese director...This is beginning to sound more and more like the Emperor's Clothes to me. Let's not give her too much credit for what is not there. Understated, sure. To a fault. Not a Japanese movie. We're not discussing Ozu here!"

So it appears to me that you are criticizing the film for both being "not Japanese" and then argue that of course the movie isn't Japanese but American and criticizing her "being American" because of course she can't be Japanese and be able to capture the Japanese idea of nothingness. So that means that Americans can't understand Japanese culture and we can't attribute to Soifa Coppola what's not in the film because she's not Japanese. Sounds abit close to casting a big net over who and who is not able to capture cultural nuances.

In the one case I was making a statement about the movie; in the other I was responding to things you said.. You yourself initially thought this movie was dense about Japan, and you were unmoved by it. You seem to have been influenced by relatives you resaw it with to alter your opinion. One can be mistaken about a movie; but I think one needs also to trust one's gut reaction.

I have to repeat, that I think this is in many ways an excellent film. But it is wan and thin emotionally and in plot content. And its treatment of the Japanese is generally dismissive and superficial. Look at the ad director. He's a blustering ninny. The verbosity of Japanese is made fun of. The title is "Lost in Translation." There is a sense that these people, isolated in the artificial environment of a dark, airless luxury hotel, are "lost," cut off from their own culture, from their own lives, and from the culture, whatever it is, of the country in which they are temporarily stranded (he wants to escape, and take her with him).

Murray's performance is remarkable in its subtle, witty recessiveness. The direction is sophisticated. But it is cool and somewhat superficial in its stategies.

The TV emcee is a a fussy, irritating, effeminate fool. We aren't meant to understand his blathering. There's not even any translation to be lost in, in his case.

I can see no contradiction in my statements. But I have to keep reiterating, though I have more reservations than many of those who've raved about this movie, I have recognized all along that it's accomplished and original and that Sofia Coppola is a promising new young director. It may not wind up on my own personal list of the year's best from the US, but I certainly won't sqawk in surprise at its being on other lists. It's a bit overrated, but not in a class with some of the most overrated of previous years. It slightly disappoints me. It doesn't outrage me.

Unless somebody has seen this movie twice, it would be difficult to really comment on comments about my second time movie experience and my gut response to it the second time. I don't think my mother's experience had must to do with influencing my reaction to the film the second time since she remained quiet except for the laughter that both she and the rest of the audience audibly made throughout the movie and sat over on the otherside of my wife. But it really was my surprise that I wasn't bored with this movie the second time around and my picking up more sensations and feelings this time around that didn't register the first time. I can only say that there appears to me more depth to this movie than at first glance.

It is true that I cannot comment on your second-time viewing experience, still less on your mother's viewing experience. I can't really comment on your viewing experiences at all; I can only comment on my own viewing experience, which, however, I firmly trust. I did not fail to see depth in the movie and it did not at any point bore me. I refer you to my review of it which is posted on this website. You are mistaken in thinking that I am questioning your own reactions, about which I cannot comment. You seem offended by the fact that although you reversed your opinion of the movie's approach to Japan, I haven't reversed my thoughts about that. We have to agree to disagree, and I don't feel confused about what I think at all, or likely to modify, only strengthen, my first-time impressions of the movie if I see it again. I'm sure I'd see more. One always sees more, if there's anything to see. But I don't think that I'd reverse my views. I think they were quite moderate and fair to begin with. My opinion wasn't dismissive as yours was initially:

Quote:

---

If this movie's audience had been directed towards tourists or business people who didn't have an clear cut agenda in going to Japan or for people who wanted a slice of "real" life as an outsider or for people interested on non-drama of the relationship of two people in a strange country than this is the perfect movie. This movie has no real drama, no real message...

---

Although my reivew wasn't a rave, compared to many, I was much kinder to it than that.

Originally posted by tabuno
it would be difficult to really comment on comments about my second time movie experience

I believe your take on this film is utterly valid. My guess is that you are a flexible individual, open to new experience because your present responses are not dictated by old perceptions.

I like to test films I loved and films others loved but I didn't, by watching them again. There are many circumstances and viewing conditions that often impact appraisal. There are films that I've been unable to penetrate or grasp on first viewing. Some of these have become favorites of mine.

I agree with you, Oscar, of course. I hope you're not suggesting that I'm being rigid here. I too am a "flexible individual." My views of movies do change--either way; I may like them better, they may lose their magic, or I may just see more that I missed the first time.

Let me point out that the quote from tabuno that you start with, "it would be difficult to really comment on comments about my second time movie experience" is something I confirmed: "It is true , I said, that I cannot comment on your second-time viewing experience, still less on your mother's viewing experience.". I wouldn't question his changed opinion, only the likelihood of my doing an about-face on my so moderate views -- at this time.

This is because in the case of Lost in Translation I'm simply saying that having thought about it a lot, discussed it a lot, and formulated my ideas about it in a carefully written review, I'm very doubtful that re-seeing it -- now anyway -- would make me change my evaulation -- which, anyway, was very moderate and balanced, in my view. I praised it pretty highly, but with some reservations. How that could change now is beyond me. Maybe in six months or six years it would look quite different to me: but it might look better or it might look worse. I maintain that it can go either way. It's not a sure thing that seeing a movie more times will mean liking it more, though if one already liked it quite a lot, one's appreciation may very well deepen.

It would be irresponsible of me to publish a review of a movie in which I expressed views I hadn't deeply considered or worked out, or that I was likely to reverse a week later.

I was tremendously impressed by certain films at one time which have lost their magic. An example is Rene Clement's Forbidden Games (Jeux interdits, 1952). When I saw it again ten or fifteen years later, I didn't feel anything any more. Bonnie and Clyde was devastating to me at the time; less so now. Easy Rider had a shocking impact; now it seems superficial and gimmicky. Maybe if tabuno sees Lost in Translation again in five years, by himself, he'll find it's losing interest again. There are films that are exactly the right thing for the public at the time. Then they date. It's not a sure thing to assume that re-seeing movies is an ever-growing joy. Sometimes it can be very disenchanting.

It's really nice to have somebody who really cares about film. He can continue a dialogue and not close down unlike many people on other sites. Many of his comments about the movie are insightful. It's really enjoyable to actually be able to discuss movie stuff not fluff.

Thanks for taking my response in such a positive way. The site is all about discussion. It's a shame when anybody's response causes the debate to shut down and I don't like that to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Chris Knipp

This may be in part a generational thing, as you suggest. You may be particularly hard on Coppola because she is closer to your generation, and you expect better.

Your reaction seems a bit overboard against, but is valuable as a corrective since not only the critics but most people I know here in the Bay Area can see no wrong in this movie, which I agree is really pretty empty.

---

I would agree with much of this. I am hard on her as someone of my generation. But to be honest, I dont think we should expect less of her because shes 28. I mean she has every resource available to her that a filmmaker could want and still comes up short, atleast in my estimation. I would point to someone like Wes Anderson who directed a brilliant Bottle Rocket at a younger 26 with none of the resources and 100 times the results. In any case, I do hope she improves, but overly generous critical response (again, in my estimation) would seem like a hinderance to much needed growth. Perhaps Im just a meany :>

Meanie :)

I should have also mentioned, pmw, that you're harder on her not only because of your generational closeness to her but because she's Francis Coppola's daughter! She's bound to get a hard time from some people for that.

Again, I still think your strong stand against the movie is a useful corrective. But I find more and more people I know -- everybody seems to see it eventually -- have begun to say that it's a bit empty, that something is lacking.

I hope this discussion helps more people to see that rating a movie is really a very complex thing. Numbers from one to ten really are a waste of time when it comes to fully evaluating those complexities.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by pmw
I dont think we should expect less of her because shes 28. I mean she has every resource available to her that a filmmaker could want and still comes up short, atleast in my estimation. [/B]

---

I agree, and you're not being mean, p.

Give ME those resources, Francis! Sofia is a lucky brat, and while I'm glad she's making a dent, she has a lot to live up to with that name....she is indeed falling short of her potential considering her pedigree.

Where is Vivian Kubrick? I'm gonna write to her. She could dethrone Sofia in short order. Did you know Viv shut down Spielberg's Raiders of the Lost Ark production for weeks because Steve didn't give a fuck about the way the snakes were treated?

It's true.

She was asked to document the shooting of "Raiders" like she did on Stanley's The Shining.

I don't think it's fair to make comparisons on movie quality based on father/daughter relations. I would I hope that some other basis would be used because frankly the whole parent/child comparison is unfair and hopefully invalid because the influence of the parent when it comes to artistic endeavors by the time one is an adult would amount to something much different than before.

Originally posted by Johann
Where is Vivian Kubrick? I'm gonna write to her. She could dethrone Sofia in short order.

All Vivian Kubrick's done is a 23 year-old half hour made-for-tv making-of The Shining. She couldn't even get daddy to sit down for an interview.

I'm incredulous about my having to post defending the filmography of an accomplished, young director with an original vision.

Johann's is one of the most ridiculous posts I've read on this site. I write this with trepidation. He is the one member willing to consider current releases, recognized and obscure movies from the medium's history, as well as films from the fringes. He teaches me a lot. But that's one silly post. Too much turkey???

When you're working in the same field as a famous father you have to live with that fact. This includes being called "a lucky brat." It comes with the territory. However, the remarks about Kubrick's daughter were out of left field, to be sure. I think this came up because I was interpreting pmw's very critical response to Lost in Translation. I said he was harsher on her because she's more his age. As an older person I'm more inclined to be impressed by her precociousness (esp. with Virgin Suicides). Then it occured to me that another motivation for being hard on her is that she's the daughter of a great director and therefore had certain advantages the average girl doesn't get, and also comes in for comparisons with her dad's best work.

These are threads: they twist and turn. Sometimes they get lost -- in limbo.

I wonder if people dont give her movies more credit than deserved because of her pedigree.

Let me ask this: was anyone else suprised by the number of elements that distinctly aimed at creating a Rushmore-like air?

I just didnt think this was necessary. Rushmore came out what 4 years ago? An odd homage....?

Vivian Kubrick's half-hour "made for tv movie" is light years better than The Virgin Suicides. And I am serious when I say that.

She did way better than "get daddy to sit down for an interview"- she documented the man on a movie set- directing. That's worth more than 10 films by little Sofia, who is enjoying a nice start to her "original vision" career.

Vivian Kubrick has the potential to be a master director- like her old man. No, she hasn't made a film yet. That doesn't concern me. The making of the shining was incredible, and Stanley himself said he wouldn't have allowed it to be seen unless it kicked ass.

I take offence to being thought of as ridiculous. Kubrick/Coppola.
I'll side with a film NOT made by Vivian than 2 releases by sofia.

Quote:

---

I wonder if people don't give her movies more credit than deserved because of her pedigree.

---

That too: the odds are raised when your dad is famous. Everybody's watching you, and the reactions are more extreme in both directions, praise and blame. "Comparisons are odious." But oh, how we like to make them. Knowing the brilliance and epic quality of Francis Ford Coppola's best work, people may find Sofia, who was somewhat of a joke and an embarrassment earlier as a bit player, works, as it was said of Jane Austin, on a "little piece of ivory." But let's give her a chance, hey? For me, The Virgin Suicides works better than Lost in Translation, precisely because it is a tidy, ironic little adaptation of a clever novel. The recent movie has more pretentions to profundity and does not sufficiently fulfil them to leave me completely happy, though it, too, shows ease with the medium, a fresh outlook, and an ability to assemble and work with an excellent cast and crew.

I can't discuss the merits of Kubrick's daughter because I know nothing about her, and though I would hesitate to call anybody's statements"silly" -- especially not those of Johann, who has contributed so much here, the issue of the relative merits of famous directors' daughters as filmmakers seems pretty peripheral.

This topic came up because Sofia Coppola has made a name for herself.

I'm glad she has done so. The problem is precisely that her father is a major figure in the history of motion pictures.
*get ready for some blunt comments*

I happen to believe that if you are the kin of a famous artist (and especially if that famous artist has a legacy that is monumental) you had better have your shit together. Let me make my point.

Look at Jean Renoir. He's just as great an artist as his father, the painter Auguste, if not better.

Look at Sean Lennon. He's an annoying little piss-ant who can't even sniff his dad's black Rickenbacker. He's an embarrassment to the music industry. Don't let that kid in a studio!

Look at Julian Lennon. He's got the same ideals as John when it comes to melody and evocation. I love his album Valotte. He got torpedoed by Yoko so that Sean could "be an artist" on his dad's nickel. It makes me sick. If you knew the shit Julian has put up with from Yoko you would be shocked. Jakob Dylan at least rarely mentions Bob. Good on him. Why bother when your dad is poet laureate?

back to film (sorry).

All I'm saying is Sofia Coppola has a lot to live up to, and until she makes an epic that knocks me on my ass, I'm going to be critical. Harshly so. I'm happy she's making good films. But this is Coppola we're talking about here.

If Vivian Kubrick was making films I have a sneaky suspicion that she would aim higher than Sofia in the "legacy" dept.
(if she aims at all-what are you trying to do, Sofia?)
In my dreams Viv is working on something that will surprise the film world. Her name is Kubrick, and in terms of film, it holds tremendous weight. Hanging out on Stanley's sets and being raised at Abbot's Mead has to be something that will elevate a possible VK project higher than Coppola's interesting but not incredible efforts. A Vivian Kubrick film would be an event. I barely raised an eyebrow when The Virgin Suicides came out. why? Because I fucking remember Godfather 3. That's why!

Pardon me if I have suspicions about the great Sofia Coppola...

You are perfectly illustrating my point.

But unlike you, I happen to know a lot about Vivian Kubrick, so I can discuss her "merits". I know less about Sofia, but no matter.

The majority of the clips from Full Metal Jacket in the documentary by Jan Harlan Stanley Kubrick: A Life in Pictures were from Vivian's camera. She made a doc on that production (like The Shining) but it was shelved. -probably because it didn't live up to the Kubrick standard.

Of Kubrick's 3 daughters, Vivian is the only one to take an interest in filmmaking and it appears she was cut little slack from her dad. She was TAUGHT by him how to make films. If I was her, I'd be in production on some film project.
The book "A Life in Pictures" by Stanley's beautiful widow Christiane shows stills like the one with Viv and Stanley hovered over a movieola- I almost cried when I saw that picture!

Yes, I'm biased. I have studied the "bios" on francis and stanley. Francis routinely treated Eleanor terribly, and I have little sympathy. Coppola has lost his marbles on occasion, and I think I can be forgiven for assuming it's a family not without some form of dysfunction. Kubrick, for the most part, seems to have had it all together. I'm not saying he was omnipotent, but christ, the guy knew what he was doing ALL THE TIME. I think it's better to make mistakes while conscious.

Kubrick in this context is a better "name" than Coppola.

If I had a major film director as my father, I wouldn't dare "enter the arena" unless I did him proud.
I haven't heard if Francis is proud, but I'm sure he is. He cares about family, I'll give him that. I like to think Vivian Kubrick would take her time, just like THE MASTER.....

Just writing a quick hello and post from degaulle airport, then off to shoot some digital footage. My mind is going at a mile a minute.

Oscar, no hard feelings, eh?

It's just film discussion....

Johan--Nice to hear direct from the setting of "Décalage horaire."