"There's a simple way to solve the crime problem: obey the law; punish those who do not." - Rush Limbaugh
 

ADVERTISMENTS:





call us:
206-350-1082

support killoggs!
  Tue

ed
I finally get it.



Okay, six eons behind the rest of the world, I have seen Lost In Translation. I totally loved it. Probably because I'm old enought to BE Bill Murray's character (well, nearly), and can identify with the whole "life-weary-but-still-plugging-along" thing.

And Scarlett has been promoted from some fairly pretty chick to a total babe.

[ 404 responses ] < Movies > < link >
[ posted by ed at 10/26/2004 10:20:37 PM ]
[ trackback ]



Threaded Responses [ bottom ]
andrew [email] said at 10:39 PM 10-26-2004:
gotta agree with you ed. i watched this thing about 6 times in a row when i rented it. hadn't done thst since i rented midnight cowboy.
jake [email] said at 10:44 PM 10-26-2004:
I gotta disagree. Everyone is wrong about this movie. The film techniques are stolen left and right, and irrelevant to the the (threadbare, angst ridden, and nonsensical) plot. The portrayal of Japanese culture and the experience of foreigners was erroneous at best and jingoistically detached at worst. The acting...wasn't really bad, but how tough is it to sigh, wiggle eyebrows meaningully, and leap onto beds?

The scene looking through the window was masterful, pure and haunting, however.
    ed [email] said at 11:07 PM 10-26-2004:
    Well, your opinion is certainly valid, at the very least to yourself.

    My reasons for liking it have a lot to do with some of my own life experiences. Your mileage may - and SHOULD - vary.
      jake [email] said at 11:32 PM 10-26-2004:
      your opinion is certainly valid

      That's as high as praise gets, when it comes to opposing arguments on killoggs. I will say there's a small contingent of folks who I've talked to who agree with me (I even remember cecil being one) but I'm sure you're right about varying mileage. Glad you enjoyed watching a film, even one I detest.
    zack [email] said at 11:32 PM 10-26-2004:
    sorry, jake but I hate to tell you you are SO WRONG. This movie made me shit my pants with emotion.
      jake [email] said at 11:34 PM 10-26-2004:
      You are a weak willed participant in a degenerate art form. And still haven't told me whether I can get one of them t-shirts.
    josh [email] said at 11:39 PM 10-26-2004:
    Wow, jake doesn't like something.

    IT MUST BE AWESOME
    josh [email] said at 11:49 PM 10-26-2004:
    The film techniques are stolen left and right

    I'm tired of people levying this charge against movies. The art of cinema is like 100 years old, people. Are you going to say that people can use jump-cuts because the Russian surrealist filmmakers used it to such great affect? STFU.
      josh [email] said at 11:50 PM 10-26-2004:
      "can't use"
        jake [email] said at 1:50 AM 10-27-2004:
        Alright, you're right Josh--I shouldn't have said film techniques. I meant something more that's a combination of filming, shot composition, and content, but your point probably applies even still.
          reggie [email] said at 9:12 AM 10-27-2004:
          It does. Regardless, I think this is a movie you have to be in the right frame of mind to like. Ed was able to make a very personal connection to this movie. I know while I was living in Philly I couldn't help but see similarities between me and Scarlett Johannsen's character. If you don't like it then you don't like it but what I found most powerful about the movie is that you have two people, one male one female, from different generations who are able to make a connection not based on lust but on recognition. As in each character sees a part of him/herself within the other. They find comfort in that because as they look out at the world around them they realize that there's little in the world that they do actually connect with. This disconnect is compounded by the fact that they're each stuck in Japan, but for all intents and purposes you could've based this movie in Des Moines. What's also fascinating is that I'm sure each character wants what the other already has, I'm sure Bill Murray would like the chance to be young again while Johannsen's character desires Murray's age and experience. Yet at the same time there they are separated by about thirty years of life and neither character is any closer to finding the point of it all.
            zack [email] said at 1:24 PM 10-27-2004:
            I saw so much of myself in BOTH of these characters..
            myriam [email] said at 3:19 PM 10-27-2004:
            i think this is the most insightful synopsis of this movie that i've read. you identified things that i had felt intuitively but was unable to evaluate objectively. thanks.
              reggie [email] said at 12:10 PM 10-31-2004:
              Thanx! I had to cut back though, this could've been one of my legendary ridiculously long and rambling analyses.
          pokey [email] said at 11:01 PM 11-07-2004:
          Sofia totally should have invented her own new kind of film, and shot it through a kaleidoscope, and written about something totally foreign to the world (not her own life, how droll!), so that it would be art, instead of reconstituted garbage.
            brandon [email] said at 11:25 PM 11-07-2004:
            I HATE it when people make movies about their lives.

            Surely they realize that when need more movies about football, and submarines and anachronism-laden beef-fests like Troy and Gladiator and Alexander the Great.

            There's no art in anything that's not beection packed and bulging with money.
    rick [email] said at 1:31 PM 10-27-2004:
    Well, Jake, I think you are wrong about the portrayal of Japanese culture ( full disclosure: I have never been to Japan); I think it was more to give a sense of what it is like to be in a foreign country where one knows nobody and cannot communicate with anybody.

    That being said, I was very fond of the film when I first saw it but it did not hold up well when I saw it a second time.

      courtney [email] said at 1:52 PM 10-27-2004:
      Agreed. If this film was to be about Japanese culture, it would've been a completely different movie.

      Although, when I saw this movie, I had just come back from a trip to Japan and enjoyed seeing the city through someone else's eyes.
        rick [email] said at 1:54 PM 10-27-2004:
        I remember once reading a scathing critique of how inaccurate the portrayal of the Japanese escort was and thinking, "Seriously, there is a larger issue here."
          ed [email] said at 1:57 PM 10-27-2004:
          Lip your stocking?
            rick [email] said at 1:59 PM 10-27-2004:
            Actually one of the issues the dood raised was that she would have been able to speak flawless English if she had been an "authentic" high-priced escort.
        josh [email] said at 1:55 PM 10-27-2004:
        Courtney hit it : the film's portrayl of Japan is the country as the director saw it. It's her perception. Maybe her perception is "incorrect", but that's why it's a work of art...
          jake [email] said at 1:58 PM 10-27-2004:
          My critique is not that the director/author got it wrong, but that the way she got it wrong is at best boring to me, and at worst a eurocentric imperialist caricature. Now back to my Chai/Soy Latte and Placenta burger.
            rick [email] said at 2:02 PM 10-27-2004:
            That will be almost any film about another country. I thought the portrayal of the U.S. president in "Love Actually" was a ridiculous hybrid caricature as were the Wisconsin strumpets. It goes back and forth and actually a lot of U.S. films have stereotyped views of other regions within the U.S.
              jake [email] said at 2:06 PM 10-27-2004:
              Not all stereotypes are just stereotypes.
                rick [email] said at 2:07 PM 10-27-2004:
                But all stereotypes are potentially harmful, even if there is a kernel of truth to them.
                  jake [email] said at 2:10 PM 10-27-2004:
                  Not every potential is identical.
                  Jingoism is different than Hicksterism.
                    rick [email] said at 2:13 PM 10-27-2004:
                    False. Just as it is wrong to smirk at these Japanese who speak bad English, wear funky clothes and eat outlandish foods, so too, is it bad to think all U.S. citizens are ignorant hipocrites who sport a Southern drawl regardless of whether or not they are from the South.
                      jake [email] said at 2:15 PM 10-27-2004:
                      ahahahaha no.

                      Stereotypes that feed into a history of violent slaughter and oppression are not the same as (still bad) stereotypes that feed into a history of mockery and disrespect.
                        rick [email] said at 2:16 PM 10-27-2004:
                        The two go hand-in-hand.
                          jake [email] said at 2:19 PM 10-27-2004:
                          ahahaha no.
                          People in the SF Mission stereotype the girls from the Marina as fashion-slave club-sluts.
                          That's really not the same as, say, people from the north assuming that anyone with a texas accent is a racist, or that the asians are quirky and don't love their children.
                            rick [email] said at 2:23 PM 10-27-2004:
                            It is the same mechanism and may lead to death and destruction.

                            "Against stupidity there is no moderation" -Nestroy

                      josh [email] said at 2:23 PM 10-27-2004:
                      its not wrong to smirk at either of them, you PC fucktard.
                        rick [email] said at 2:25 PM 10-27-2004:
                        Oh, yes. It is high form to mock a whole group over attributes one arbitrarily assigns to it, no matter if they do or do not indeed have those attributes.
                          josh [email] said at 2:34 PM 10-27-2004:
                          comedy would not exist if you had your way, rick.
                            rick [email] said at 2:41 PM 10-27-2004:
                            You have little imagination, if you truly think that.

                            Besides, a lot of comedy rests upon someone saying something that they do not believe in and are against and it is funny because most people are the same way and it understand it as such.

                              josh [email] said at 3:21 PM 10-27-2004:
                              So far on Killoggs Rick you've stated that we:

                              1. shouldn't mock people based on things outside their control
                              2. shouldn't mock people based on attributes a group has
                              3. shouldn't mock people based on attributes we assign to them but they don't have

                              We starting to have not a lot left besides scatalogical humor... or perhaps very highbrow Noam Chomsky jokes about linguistics.
                                rick [email] said at 6:10 PM 10-27-2004:
                                I have not said #2 unless one means attributes one is born with and will never be rid of. Also, "defined collective groups of " should precede "people."

                                Noam Chomsky is ripe for mockery as he is a Holocaust denier and he called the Cambodian killing fields a "CIA plot" as well as condemning the operations in Kosovo as the CIA trying to prop up a one-world government. In fact, once on Killoggs, there was a link to a rollicking fake discussion involving Howard Zinn and Chomsky over "Lord Of The Rings" and how the orcs were oppressed by the hobbits and elves of Middle Earth.

                                That being said, Chomsky may be the greatest linguist of the Twentieth Century. That does not mean he cannot not be mocked in the same way Sir Isaac Newton can be mocked for spending most of his time on Biblical prophecy ( this by the way is a fact).

                                  myriam [email] said at 6:12 PM 10-27-2004:
                                  so, basically, you can mock someone if you disagree with their point of view. but everyone else you have to protect from mockery.
                                    rick [email] said at 6:13 PM 10-27-2004:
                                    No, I am allowed to mock you over theories of architecture but it would be wrong for me to mock you because you are white.
                                      myriam [email] said at 6:16 PM 10-27-2004:
                                      so, once again, you can mock me if you disagree with my ideas. but not for any other reason.
                                        rick [email] said at 6:22 PM 10-27-2004:
                                        No, I could mock you for anything besides what you had no control over. Even then, that would be allowable so as long as everyone understood it was wrong and it is not to be made into a habit.
                                          myriam [email] said at 6:27 PM 10-27-2004:
                                          wow, it must be difficult to keep track of all the rules on your planet! glad i am to be a nemotodic alien.
                                            rick [email] said at 6:28 PM 10-27-2004:
                                            Rules were made to be broken. And breaking rules feels good. I am glad to know that Killoggs is not speciesist.
                                      myriam [email] said at 6:17 PM 10-27-2004:
                                      also, it'd be pretty stupid to mock me over architecture, because the chances are that i would be right and you would be wrong. also, NOBODY FINDS ARCHITECTURE FUNNAY. this i have learned from my own attempts to joke about it. so once again we prove that you have a BAD sense of humor.
                                        rick [email] said at 6:23 PM 10-27-2004:
                                        "Writing about music is like dancing about architecture" -Frank Zappa.

                                        Architecture can be funny. I read once of an architect who wanted mass-produced homes made of concrete, all built from a single mold! And with concrete furniture too! That is funny and if you disagree you have revealed yourself to be a nematode sent from another galaxy to bring down humanity.

                                          myriam [email] said at 6:30 PM 10-27-2004:
                                          i am fond of you, rick, even though you know nothing about architecture and misuse the pronoun "one." i will make fun of those things more in the future.
                                            rick [email] said at 6:33 PM 10-27-2004:
                                            So you think that home kits that require thousands of parts to be put together and made solely from concrete and stocked with concrete furniture is a good idea? The dood lost a bundle of money in that little venture.

                                            "One" is the way to go. "You" is the height of rudeness.

                                              myriam [email] said at 6:44 PM 10-27-2004:
                                              "you" is actually the formal tense. thus more polite than anything else.

                                              /channeling rick
                                                myriam [email] said at 6:54 PM 10-27-2004:
                                                ``In Old English, generally, thou is the language of a lord to a servant, of an equal to an equal, and expresses also companionship, love, permission, defiance, scorn, threatening: whilst ye is the language of a servant to a lord, and of compliment, and further expresses honor, submission, or entreaty.'' --Skeat.

                                                (in anticipation of your inevitable challenge)
                                                  rick [email] said at 11:22 PM 10-27-2004:
                                                  Our language has evolved. "You" is alright for people one knows but seems a bit too familiar for those one does not know. It is presumptuous as well to put it into so many general categories the way people in the U.S. are often wont to do.
                                                    myriam [email] said at 12:51 AM 10-28-2004:
                                                    the funny thing is that i swear to you, the other day a stranger used the word "you" when telling me something and the whole way home i ruminated on why that felt too falsely familiar and rude to me and what we could possibly begin to use in its place. english has lost the formal "you" but democratizing "you"... it's a shame. i wish we still had thee and thou so that at least familiarity and politeness could still be defined.
                                                      rick [email] said at 10:14 AM 10-28-2004:
                                                      A familiar "you" and a formal "you" would be too elitist; there is a need for a plural "you" though which is why Southern good ol' boys who quoth "y'all" speak better English than the Queen Of England.
                                              myriam [email] said at 6:46 PM 10-27-2004:
                                              if you'd had deep experience with concrete you'd know it to be a highly sensual material.

                                              it has been misused by countless engineers and developers and, alas, architects who only appreciate its cheapness and structural properties.

                                              i wish i were kidding. this is not a funny subject, rick.
                                                rick [email] said at 11:20 PM 10-27-2004:
                                                Concrete is fine for building homes but not for building furniture. Furniture should be comfortable; I doubt even Le Corbusier could appreciate a concrete love seat.

                                                Also, the house-molds that were to be used for the concrete houses had, literally, thousands of parts. This made it very hard for contractors to put them together. While concrete has advantages, many find its appearance and texture displeasing. One of the functions of a home is to give comfort.

                                                Concrete deserves better than to be ordered into the fray so ill-equipped.

                                            rick [email] said at 6:35 PM 10-27-2004:
                                            Come to me, Myriam.

                                            We can sail into the sunny Bay Of Fundy talking about smoking cessation, the dangers of red meat, the joys of macrobiotic lifestyles, how Gypsey Boots was a prophet, why "City Of Angels" is an overlooked masterpiece, and how living in a skyscraper made of recycled materials is mankind's next evolutionary step. Think of the sensual pleasures that await.

                                  josh [email] said at 6:40 PM 10-27-2004:
                                  i never said you wouldnt mock chomsky - said you would only appreciate intellectual mockery.
                                rick [email] said at 6:12 PM 10-27-2004:
                                A lot of what I describe as "evil" humor ( which is my favorite humor) is very much vile on the surface though not content-wise. It involves a joke going against universal or almost-universal ethical norms and is funny precisely because it does so. However, few would think that the presenter is serious about it.

                                "The Simpsons" is full of this as is "Futurama" and other shows.

                        jake [email] said at 2:28 PM 10-27-2004:
                        I never said it was, you oversensitive Limbaugh Ditto-head!
            josh [email] said at 2:22 PM 10-27-2004:
            HEY JAKE - i was responding to Courtney, not you.

            Not everything is about you.
              jake [email] said at 2:26 PM 10-27-2004:
              HEY DICK - I was responding to you agreeing with courtney agreeing with rick disagreeing with me.

              Maybe you should change your thread settings, asswipe.
                meredith [email] said at 2:33 PM 10-27-2004:
                Jake has become my favorite quotable.
                milky [email] said at 2:40 PM 10-27-2004:
                burn
                josh [email] said at 2:42 PM 10-27-2004:
                Wrong. I agreed with the seperate point about how it was fun to see the country through someone else's eyes.
                  jake [email] said at 2:47 PM 10-27-2004:
                  Well it's odd that she used the word "enjoy" and you used the word "incorrect."
                    josh [email] said at 2:54 PM 10-27-2004:
                    I'm talking about the director being "incorrect".

                    The director's perception of the country may be factually incorrect but it's because any time you express your perception of something, especially your experiences, it ceases to be reality because it's filtered through your personality... And that's what makes art interesting. Different people's perceptions and expressions.

                    Example : "Vincent Van Gogh's paintings of sunflowers are not very accurate." I think this is about as good of a critique as stating that any personal, fictional film depicts a place or culture as inaccurate.
                      jake [email] said at 2:58 PM 10-27-2004:
                      oh, so you WERE talking about the legitimacy of a director's flawed but personal perspective, not the ENJOYMENT of the same? Well then I say again, I don't quibble with the validity of the perspective, but I find it boring and distasteful.

                      Please respect the perspective on reality filtered through my experience and personality as expressed in the response, YOU UTTER DICK.
                        josh [email] said at 3:10 PM 10-27-2004:
                        again, i was responding to courtney's aside, not your point, whatever it might have been. watever it was, it's more than likely wrong, as you have proved in this thread and others.

                        enough responding for now, i have to get back to appreciating the wholly original techniques of the very popular and academy-award-nominated film the Limey.
                      josh [email] said at 3:07 PM 10-27-2004:
                      note : this is in reaction to courtney's comment about seeing the country through her eyes and enjoying that.
                      courtney [email] said at 3:13 PM 10-27-2004:
                      Yes, perception is a completely different thing than facts. That's why this film (and many others) sis fiction.

                      If we want the facts, we can see a documentary.
                      myriam [email] said at 3:36 PM 10-27-2004:
                      that is a really good analogy.
          courtney [email] said at 2:36 PM 10-27-2004:
          That's where I have a problem with people (critics) saying that directors "got it wrong". It's almost always about the screenwriters'/director's/DP's (heck, anyone involved in creation) point of view.
kiche [email] said at 10:46 PM 10-26-2004:
lost in translation really should have won the oscar for best picture.

now you need to buy my bloody valentine's loveless.
abby [email] said at 11:34 PM 10-26-2004:
bitch looks FLY in a sweatervest.
    zack [email] said at 11:48 PM 10-26-2004:
    not to mention her big juicy ass.
      josh [email] said at 11:54 PM 10-26-2004:
      kevin [email] said at 1:09 AM 10-27-2004:
      agreed. so hot . she is like between skinny and right on the edge to kinda sorta chubby. and i think that is so awesome. that makes her seem so nice and fuckable. yay!
        ericanm [email] said at 2:06 PM 10-27-2004:
        if she is borderline chubby then i am morbidly obese.
          jake [email] said at 2:11 PM 10-27-2004:
          WOOOT!
          kevin [email] said at 2:53 PM 10-27-2004:
          haha... you skipped a bunch of levels there and went straight to obese. umm...anyway, maybe start working out.
            brianbibbly [email] said at 2:54 PM 10-27-2004:
            HAR! Good one Kevin! That's what I am talking about! Thats the Kevin I like! Brutal assholishness! Earn those YAYs boy!
            ericanm [email] said at 3:25 PM 10-27-2004:
            look outside your window down at mass and/or 9th ave today at around 6:05pm and you tell me if i am morbidly obese. my bike is green!
              kevin [email] said at 3:39 PM 10-27-2004:
              i didn't say you were morbidly obese! you did in reponse to me saying scarlett was a tweener. like i said i thought that she was hot in that movie. whether you call it curvy, junk in da trunk, whatever. she isn't skinny and that is hot. anyway as long as you like yourself it really doesn't matter what anyone else thinks. up with people!

              bibbly bring the hate. haha.
                ericanm [email] said at 4:01 PM 10-27-2004:
                dude i am just teasing i know i am not morbidly obese. i just wanted to throw out there that i noticed yesterday that i pass almost 3 sides of your building every day when i ride home [depending on which light i catch crossing 9th to stay on mass] and you could conceivably look outside and see me. what a small world.
    ed [email] said at 2:55 PM 10-27-2004:
    I'd like to BE her sweatervest.
josh [email] said at 11:43 PM 10-26-2004:
Also, I would bang her so seriously.
    zack [email] said at 11:47 PM 10-26-2004:
    It would take a 3 day weekend for me to have my way with her in the way she deserves.
brandon [email] said at 11:53 PM 10-26-2004:
I think Jake's appreciation of this film was "LOST IN TRANSLATION."

There are SOFIA things wrong with this movie, I can only think of a COPPOLA flaws.

It TOKYO long enough to finally see it, Ed.

MURRAY, Jake, if you see it again, you'll BILL able to appreciate it more.

JOHAN fucked that goat from the smurfs, and in the SCARLETT mess of the afterbirth, found himself a SON.
julie [email] said at 10:11 AM 10-27-2004:
When this first came out in theaters, I went to see it once a week. The 3rd time was with some dude who was on his own personal 4th viewing. I began to view it the way some people view going bowling, or going to see CATS. "What do feel like doing tonight?" "I don't know. Wanna go see Lost in Translation?"

I don't mind if every single camera angle or soft-focus close up has been done before. We're living in a post-post-post-post-modern world. All we CAN do is compare what's happening now to what happened in the past. That Franz Ferdinand song sounds familiar! The cut of those jeans looks familiar! That PT Cruiser looks familiar!

And?
    josh [email] said at 10:15 AM 10-27-2004:
    here here.
    reggie [email] said at 10:18 AM 10-27-2004:
    Julie rules.
    zack [email] said at 1:28 PM 10-27-2004:
    definitely. I hate it.. there's a guy at the radio station who's all about 80's music and disparaiges all the new stuff, cause you know, "the rapture totally ripped off gang of four" or whatever, and it's just like come on! Everyone, including your so-called original heroes, ripped off something from someone else to make that sound/visual/etc etc. it's too late in the game to expect blinding originality, unfortunately. We live in a culture of remixing as personal expression.