Talk:Lost in Translation (film)/Archive 1

Perceived Racism
I tried to explain the "racism" in the film a little bit, as I felt the article did not adequately address these claims. To understate the argument against the film felt like a POV way to dismiss those claims. More could still be said. --Feitclub 23:38, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't forget the Japanese friends of Charlotte in the karaoke scene. Not all the locals in the film are the butts of jokes.Tarnas 02:19, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I noted the distinction between the "real" Tokyo citizens, and those in the artificial worlds of the hotel and the media business that Bob was "lost" in. It was as if the stress of extended dealings with the Westerners was exaggerating their apparent quirks. -- Stereoroid 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, there are only two doubtful (potentially racist) scenes in Lost in Translation. One involves Bob Harris having to duck down in the shower, when it is obvious that the shower-head could be raised to a greater height. The other is the scene with the "premium fantasy" prostitute. This is very unrealistic scene. Apart from that, negative portrayals of Japanese in the film fall within the scope of realistic satire rather than racist stereotype, in the same way that Kelly is a satirical portrayal of a Hollywood starlet, John is a superficial indie hipster, and Lydia is a materialistic Beverly Hills housewife. Middle-aged Japanese men do tend to be short, election campaigning in Japan really is that bizarre, business duties are often needlessly onerous and laden with excessive (to Westerners) politeness. They do use Western clichés (the Rat Pack, James Bond, etc.) with their own Japanese "cultural grammar," which can result in absurdities when viewed through Western eyes. Discussion of confusion of "R" and "L" is very realistic as jokey banter among expats, and in the farewell between Bob and Charlotte in the Hotel the joke is portrayed as awkward and uncomfortable ("aren't you going to wish me a good fright?").

It is disturbing that some have criticized the portrayal of characters such as Charlie Brown, Mathew Minami, the little old lady and doctor in the hospital scenes, and the Daikanyama sushi chef. These people are simply playing themselves, except for Minami (Takashi Fujii), who plays that character on Japanese television. To call these characters racist is, ironically, racist in itself.

Sophia Coppola is very familiar with Japan. She runs a clothing label there, Milk Fed (one distributor of the range, Nao Kitman, appears in the movie). The parts with Charlotte's friends, far from being a negative stereotype, represent a kind of unattainable paradise for any foreigner with an interest in the Tokyo party scene. Participants include Nobuhiko Kitamura from fashion house Hysteric Glamour (who tells Bob an anecdote about surfing - the strip-club scenes were shot in one of his shops), Hiromix who is an extremely well known photographer and filmmaker (polaroids with Charlotte, dancing with Bob, appears at the end of the credits), DJ/Head Porter designer Hiroshi Fujiwara, well-known DJ Kunichi Nomura, and editor of Dune magazine Fumihiro Hayashi (who plays Charlie Brown, which is his real-life nickname - and he sang "Anarchy in the UK" when socializing with Coppola before the film was even written). Apart from Charlotte (and perhaps Bob, depending on one's point of view), these are the only non-satirical characters in the film, whether Japanese or American, and their inclusion blows out of the water the typical politically-correct "token ethnics" that Hollywood usually throws in to "balance out" movies. To view these real people as racist stereotypes is itself extremely racist. -- Scribelrus 09:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that most Westerners who've lived in Japan, and Japanese people themselves, will know that the Japanese characters in the film aren't stereotyped at all. And they're not mocked or made to look stupid because of their "cultural characteristics". Anybody who thinks that is themself stereotyping the Japanese, and probably knows little about them.--MackORell 11:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Film influences
I think Lost in Translation bears a striking resemblance to Roman Holiday, and I wrote the following about the comparison, though I wasn't sure if these comments would fit nicely into the article. It's way too long as it is anyway.

Influences The characters, plot, and setting of the film are extremely similar to that of William Wyler's Roman Holiday (1953), Audrey Hepburn's first film. Roman Holiday is set in Rome, and Hepburn, an English-speaking princess visiting the city on a diplomatic tour, becomes frustrated with her daily regimen and wants to break out and see Rome like a normal person. She ends up meeting Gregory Peck, an expatriot American reporter who realizes just who Hepburn is, and sets about a day on the town with her, keeping secret his job as a reporter and feigning to not know that Hepburn is a princess. However, the two fall for each other by the end of the day, and after parting sadly, Peck decides not to use their day together as a story. He shows up for a press meeting with the princess the next day to give her the photographs his friend had clandestinely taken of them on their romp through the city, and makes a gift of his silence to her (she was reported to be sick in bed, Peck had a real story on his hands!), and she graciously and enchantingly accepts.

The element of fleeting companionship in a foreign cityscape, along with the theme of age difference and the eventual outcome of the tenuous romances, are all common to both films. The differences in Coppola's rendition are telling, however: in 1953, Wyler's focus was less on age difference and more on class difference (pristine European princess versus gruff American beat-writer), and the background was not of high technology and alien culture but of a simple, heart-warming hinterland still in the minds of first- and second-generation American immigant audiences. Coppola focuses on the age difference and marital malaise of her characters, and uses the setting to convey a feeling of alienation and stolen moments.

The endings of both films are most revealing: Wyler decided to have Hepburn and Peck fall for each other in two successive scenes, and then he spent several more scenes sorting out how Peck could somehow salvage his relationship with this princess. After meeting face to face as princess and reporter, the final scene shows Peck walking out of the press hall alone with the camera trained beyond him on the place where Hepburn had been standing. The tense long walk out of the movie highlights how Hepburn might, just maybe, come back out running into Peck's arms... yet she doesn't. Coppola, on the other hand, chooses to have Bob's passion for Charlotte lose its way, he sleeps with the tawdry hotel singer with whom he shares no love, and the two main characters are left to split up half-heartedly. Only in the last possible moment of the movie, when Bob and Charlotte have walked away from each other totally unsatisfied, does Bob suddenly seek out Charlotte and they finally kiss, their passion for each other no longer complicated and totally communicated. Wyler reserved that last possible moment to break off the hope of a continued communion between Hepburn and Peck, while Coppola chooses the final moment to amplify her characters' communion. Tarnas 22:24, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Great commentary! As it seems to be original, it probably doesn't belong in the article space, but I would leave it here, and maybe seek advice from an administrator. Slowmover 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone agree that the ending has a familiar air to that of In the Mood for Love by Wong Kar-Wai. I am of course referring to the whole 'whisper' device, where Charlotte whispers something to Bob Harris, but we never hear what. I took this as her telling him what she wanted, but not acting upon these impulses. Her thoughts and feelings being out in the open, so they no longer consume her and she can happily get on with her life. Similarly, in 'In the Mood for Love', Chow Mo-Wan traps his thoughts and feelings in a crack in a wall, and then covers it over with earth, for what I erceive to be the same reasons. I know Sofia Coppola in her Oscars speech, when she won an award for best screenplay, thanked a few directors including Wong Kar-Wai. I am not saying there is anything wrong with regurgitating ideas in a different form, just wondering what people thought about it. Twalton 09:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a powerful scene, but I think you got it backwards :-) I just watched it, and Charlotte doesn't whisper anything to Bob Harris... the only thing she says is a clearly audible "okay". It's Bob who whispers to Charlotte. Random trivia: the Spanish dub from the Region 4 DVD managed to butcher this scene by dubbing a non-existing line over Bob's whisper, something like "let me tell something... I'll never forget you." I hate dubs. Andran 11:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I think WKW's influence on this film is pretty significant. I saw many similarities with Wong's works, where recurring themes of loneliness and alienation are intermixed with the characters in the films.Lasersharp 09:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On 15 October, 2006, an installment of The Culture Show was broadcast with an interview of Sofia Coppola, who claimed that the whispered line was a culmination of dialogue she had provided and dialogue Bill Murray came up with himself. According to presenter Lauren Laverne, the BBC had analysed the line and discovered that he seems to say "I love you, don't forget to tell the truth." I think this should be mentioned in the article but I don't know where. --84.66.75.130 23:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done and done. 86.20.148.184 04:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a little puzzled: supposed BBC analysis notwithstanding, both my husband and I clearly heard Murray's character tell Charlotte to "come to New York." Her "Okay" was uttered in response. Am I imagining this?68.72.106.45 20:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely the clearest analogy to the whole movie is "Educating Rita." Older man (Michael Caine) meets younger woman (Julie Walters) -- different worlds -- unconsummated sexual chemistry -- locals (i.e., students and townies) who do not understand -- all the way to the hanging ending.Cross Reference (talk) 03:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed image


I removed this image because I felt it was redundant and cluttered the article -- jiy 09:46, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?!
However, it should be noted that in reality, Japanese are more accepting of American culture, while most Americans hold the ethnocentric viewpoint that Japanese culture is strange and therefore mock Japanese frequently for comedy.

Yeah, that just screams "fact"....except wait, no it doesn't. You want to site a source for this? Or is this just random anti-American bias? I've lived in the US, Japan, and Germany and I really don't see anything that would suggest that "most Americans" hold an ethnocentric viewpoint. I would say it's pretty similiar in Japan, a lot of the older Japanese and Americans are much more ethnocentric than the younger ones.


 * I just added the NPOV tag here. Multiple anonymous editors keep changing the text here, removing and adding back similar statements, without backup, regarding Japanese diet, average height, and so forth.  I think all this stuff has to go, or be moved to the talk page, to return the article to a more encyclopedic tone.  Also, the new and very interesting section which translates the Suntory Time scene is very long and should, I think, be moved elsewhere. Slowmover 21:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the film could possibly be racist or biased against Japanese. The film touches on what any American would probably think if they were to go to Japan for the first time. The film is not trying to make fun of Japanese, but instead use the stark differences as a back drop for the main characters. I don't think it is prudent to ruin this otherwise good article with political correctness. Any perceived biases should be left to the reader when he/she watches the film.

Now for a comment not involved with NPOV
The translation of scenes section seems a little bit odd, especially without the original Japanese which its translating. Should we move it to Wikiquotes or add the Japanese to it? At the very least, there should be, I think, the Japanese for a bit of context. ZanderSchubert 07:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I question whether or not the scene translation is necessary in the first place. Though it does arguably support the thesis of the film, it seems to me as if it might infringe on copyright in some way.
 * If the section is to be kept, it might simply be better to move it to Wikiquote and link it. Adding Japanese for context makes sense, but seems to be pointless, as most readers would not be able to read it. The Japanese, in that case, would simply be extraneous. Ourai 04:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would infringe copyright; in the US it would be covered by fair use, in the UK I'm not so sure, but I would imagine the same rules would apply as when quoting academic material; reference it and you're fine. --User24 20:33, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

24.200.34.195 and Trivia Point 3
Recently, 24.200.34.195 posted a comment on Trivia Point 3, which states that a character is modelled after the director's father. The comment was essentially a question posed to the statement itself: who was based off Sofia Coppola's father? Unless a name can be ascribed to the character in question--and verified, at that--the entire point should be removed outright. Ourai 12:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * While I agree that there should be a source for the point, it is pretty obvious that the character in question is Bob. I'll do some searching and see if I can verify it. --ChinaNailStorm 14:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I didn't see that the point had been changed to accomodate the fact there is no source. --ChinaNailStorm 14:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Synopsis is incomplete!!
The story has many more important scenes which aren't even mentioned here. It seems here that the plot ends at the karaoke scene (I would've thought that if I hadn't seen the movie!), which is actually not even halfway through! It would be great if someone wrote the ENTIRE synposis for people to understand everything that happens. I'd do it if I was able to remember the order of all scenes from the movie well enough to describe them. So, thanks to anyone else in advance. Kreachure 00:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought it was incomplete too, but I don't know if I could capture the essence of the key moments; one of the perfect things about this film is the way that each scene holds different importance to different people, it's a much a film about the viewer as the story. --User24 20:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I've just watched the film on TV and had a go at updating the synopsis. I was doing it as i watched the film and was stuggling to do both at the same time so there may be some errors in the plot and it may need tidying up in general. It hopefully covers the main points of the film though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.245.102 (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC).
 * On the contrary, I think the synopsis is incredibly bloated and filled with uncited assertions and personal opinion. Unless there is substantial objections I'm going to chop much of it out - at least the opinionated sentences. Early Q 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I've now condensed it enormously. While I agree there are many critical and beautiful scenes in the film not mentioned, we must remember what a synopsis is. Early Q 12:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lost in Translation is my favorite movie. I love the cinematography and the subtleties of it all. People have different tastes in film, and this is mine. And whoever said you can't connect with the characters because there is no story or conflict clearly doesn't have idea what they're talking about. There's a reason why this was Murray's favorite film to work on- it's a gorgeous, powerful piece of art. Enord (talk) 16:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Stereotypes
Cut:


 * Some have strongly criticised the movie for what is perceived to be a stereotyped and unsympathetic portrayal of Japanese culture. Occasionally Japanese characters serve as comic relief and some of the humor is at their expense based on common Japanese stereotypes, such as their mispronouncing English or their relatively short stature. In the film's defence, Peter Sattler, in a letter to movie critic David Edelstein of Slate, wrote that "the feelings of strangeness are entirely in the American characters. The camera records beauties&mdash;cultural and natural&mdash;that the 'lost' visitors are unable to register or understand ... In the movie, Japanese culture estranges you from American culture&mdash;makes American culture look strange and dubbed, as much as the other way around." According to proponents of the film, it should be understood that the "alien" landscape of Tokyo serves largely to illustrate the alienation the main characters experience, a feeling that persists not because they are in a foreign land, but because they are human.  Critics say that the alienation could have been done without scenes of stereotypes that mock Japanese culture.

I'm puzzled by this passage. Do these unnamed critics say that Japanese aren't shorter than Westerners or that they don't mispronounce English?

I saw the movie twice: once in a theatre, and then again on DVD (using rewind to study certain scenes). I found nothing "unsympathetic" about its portrayal of Japanese people as shorter than Americans, or about their more compact use of space.

There's a scene where a photographer speaks at length in Japanese to Bill Murray's character, and the translator summarizes the remarks tersely. This rings true, and I don't see how this is unsympathetic. Actually, I thought the translator did an excellent job, as Motoko Rich's transcript in 'Trivia' shows.

I didn't delete this passage, however, because I invite others to expand on this issue. Who are these critics? What are their objections and reasons? --Uncle Ed 15:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
Considering the unique perspective of this film, I was surprised to see it got such a general, generic treatment here on Wikipedia. I'm afraid I don't know where to look for citable reactions - film magazines, contemporary Japanese culture academic journals, etc - but I think this is far more than simply a nice film with a story. It addresses a lot of issues of culture, etc, and I'm sure there must be more that can be written. I could sit and write a whole essay on it right now, but as Wikipedia frowns on original research (and I agree for the most part with that), we need to find citations of more "official" responses. LordAmeth 08:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

for this reason i've added an external link at the bottom of the page to weareawake.org. it contains very in depth analysis within the forum both of the movie and the underlying themes it represents. i believe inclusion of the link will be of benefit to those looking at the current wikipedia article who wish to know more. Silverstar189 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I just removed that link. The guideline External links recommends not including links to discussion forums and the like at WP:LINKSTOAVOID Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

No screenplay
I heard somewhere that despite getting a screenplay oscar LIT actually didn't have a screenplay at all while shooting.. anyone know any more about this? M.C. Brown Shoes 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * There was a screenplay. The draft I have is the September 2nd, 2002 draft, which is also the draft that circulates on screenplay sites (though, I have a physical copy through a friend with production ties). It's slightly different than the final film, but most screenplays are. Robixsmash 18:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Synopsis Neutrality
The Synopsis reads too much like a positive review, and not enough like an encyclopedia entry. Perhaps the positive analysis should be split into an "analysis" section, leaving the "synopsis" section to describe the actual plot. Sonicsuns 01:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That might be a start; much of the synopsis is bloated with opinions and assertions, as well unnecessary plot detail. Unless there are objections I'm going to begin by removing some of the opinions at least (actually incredibly large chunks of it). Early Q 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

CSM on Lost in Translation
Christian Science Monitor did a small article on Lost in Translation's release in Tokyo around 2004. While not stating that the film is racist, they do give the response of a critic and few individuals that say the film may be culturally bias. Not too much information here, but worth a look. 'Lost in Translation' doesn't translate well in Japan--Fang Teng (talk) 13:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Untitled
I love this film very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.41.124.119 (talk) 00:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

The Meaning of "Lost in Translation"
Something is lost in translation when a phrase or word being translated has a meaning beyond the dictionary definitions of the words. The section of this article that describes the scene in which a whiskey commercial is being shot is absolutely not an instance of anything being lost in translation. The interpreter is trying to expedite the process, and he gives only the important information to Bill Murray's character.

I would like someone to either tell me that they agree, or prove me wrong.

Thank you. 24.124.100.53 (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Evan


 * The interpreter doesn't convey the necessary information to Bill Murray's character. We know this because the director is unhappy with the takes as performed under the rubrick of the interpreter's instructions. 221.90.130.145 (talk) 18:28, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Autobiographical elements
Parallels can be found between the characters in the film and those in Coppola's own social circles. Ribisi's character has similar speech mannerisms and gestures to Coppola's then-husband, director Spike Jonze, who began his career as a photographer. In addition, the main character of Charlotte wears clothes by designer Marc Jacobs, Coppola's close friend and a designer for whom Coppola has appeared in ads. Coppola specifically denied that the film was meant to be a portrait of her marriage in an Entertainment Weekly interview. Coppola and Jonze separated soon after the film was released.

Also, the character played by Anna Faris is supposedly based on the actress Cameron Diaz. As the character, in Lost in Translation, is promoting an action film; Diaz would have most likely been promoting Charlie's Angels which was released in 2000. The relationship between Faris' character and Charlotte's husband may be derived from the real-life inspirations meeting on Being John Malkovich, which was Jonze's first directorial effort, starred a non-blonde Cameron Diaz, and was released in 1999.

The preceding I have here archived from the article (after being tagged as "unsourced" since November 2007) given the chance reliable sources may be found to verify its material. 98.212.191.191 (talk) 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

The Meaning of "Lost in Translation 2"
It is nice that someone changed the obviously incorrect reference to the meaning of the phrase "lost in translation". Unfortunately, it is still not an instance of something being lost in translation. An example would be a poem that is translated from one language to another; it will not have the same effect on the reader if it is not read in the original language. An interpreter who chooses to translate only a few words of what someone says in order to speed-up a process is not a demonstration of this idea. That whole section of the article should be removed since it is incorrect. Please engage me if you disagree.

66.45.156.90 (talk) 16:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)Evan


 * I disagree - I think that yours is a limited interpretation of the notion of lost in translation ... I would say that since the translator has chosen not to translate many of the words spoken by the director, that is still content lost through the process of translation. Have reinstated section removed earlier. --mervyn (talk) 09:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but indeed had the interpreter chosen to translate exactly what was said by the director, Bob would have understood it. A song being translated literally and not making sense in the new language is an example of the meaning of something being lost in translation. It would be wrong for someone to read that passage in this article and think that they know the meaning of "lost in translation" since nothing at all was lost in what the translator decided to translate. This section is not needed in this article since it is simply incorrect, and therefore will be removed.

65.214.102.163 (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Evan


 * I still strongly disagree - the point is that the translator did NOT choose to translate exactly what was said by the director. "Lost in translation" can have many meanings -- often it is taken to convey the idea that subtlety and nuance are lost even if basic meaning is preserved -- you are only looking at one meaning. --mervyn (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

What if I read a book that is written in English and then describe the book's meaning to you in my own words? Can I convey the full meaning of the book to you? No, I cannot. Have I translated anything? No, I have not. The situation described in the article happens very often between speakers of the same language. If that is true, how can that possibly be an instance of something being lost in translation? What you are thinking of should be called "lost in interpretation".

65.214.102.163 (talk) 21:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)Evan


 * You are really labouring a point and pushing your point of view here. All the quotation shows is that the translator fails to translate most of the director's direction to the actor. Ergo, lost in translation. --mervyn (talk) 09:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think that pushing my point of view was wrong on a discussion page. You agree that it is a loose interpretaion of the idea of the phrase "lost in translation", yet whomever wrote that passage seems to think that it illustrates the idea "quite literally". It is simply not an illustration of the idea, didn't you read my comments? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.77.51.73 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the part of the sentence that says "quite literally" since it can be argued that the situation is an instance of something being lost in translation, but the situation is certainly not a literal example of this. A literal example would be a song or poem translated into another language and losing some of it's meaning. The reason that part of the sentence should be deleted is because anyone reading it would think that the situation in the article is a literal example of something being lost in translation, and it is obviously not.

71.77.51.73 (talk) 01:17, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Evan


 * My comment about "labouring a point and pushing your point of view" was only referring to your removal of the entire section in the article, didn't mean to offend or question your freedom of speech here. Certainly sensible to remove the offending reference to "quite literally" - I wanted to ensure section was retained, cos it goes to explaining why the film is so called.

The Kiku Day review
Why is one-third of the content in the "Reception" section given to an opinion piece by Kiku Day, who is not a film critic? I see no other articles about films where a fringe review plays so prominently. As Lost in Translation was critically well received, suggest the Day view has taken Undue Weight here. RomaC (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, though I wont be the one to completely cut it. My biggest complaint is that her complaints don't ring true. The shower scene, for instance, I always took as Bill Murray's unable to work the gadget, not that they're somehow insulting Japanese people. JamesBenjamin (talk) 00:23, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, I cut it. It was just driving me nuts. I read her review and she doesn't even compare Coppola to Stalone in it! I'm sure someone will stick it back eventually, but whatever...JamesBenjamin (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool JB, it certainly wasn't a representative review, better not having it. RomaC (talk) 10:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What is lost?
you(not me) have forgotten to mention what is lost in translation.What is lost through our inadequacies of language is how we feel or think about things.We will try through our entire lives for 1 person to understand but what they translate may only be "correct" once in a million. This movie is an exploration of how we as humans deal while this reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.195.16 (talk) 13:06, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add (as I have in groundhog day>discussion>Bill murray is the groundhog) that there is no research on any movies (and if there are they are not credible on such issues) so put it in because it is right and you know it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.195.16 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Minor Edit
I've edited the wiki page with a small section clarifying the film's release in home video. I decided to make this change as I was hoping to buy this on Blu Ray and discovered it was sadly not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph4ZeD (talk • contribs) 20:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

not so lost in the spanish dub
just finished watching the spanish dub of Lost in translation, and was surprised that the "inaudible" whispering that Bob does in Charlotte's ear, is totally audible in spanish.. here's what the dub actor says (translated back to English):

"I will never forget any of this.. i want you to know that... i will never ever forget you"

I was shocked to hear that, as one of the things i loved of the original movie was exactly not hearing what he says, it leaves all the mystery to the situation... but apparently, whoever was in charge of the spanish dubbing, thought otherwise...

has this been reported in other languages?

190.44.161.145 (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Reception in Japan
I heard the film was controversial in Japan if I can find some sources should we have a section on this too? These are the only reaction pieces I could find.Dwanyewest (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Yale graduate?
Since I haven't read the promo literature for the film or an unedited script, etc., I might be off on this. Either way, I'm not going to change it since I just wanted to bring this up.

In the film it's never spoken for certain that she's a Yale graduate. Yes, her husband says to her "not everybody went to Yale," but he doesn't say that she graduated from the school. While it's certain that she graduates (when she's talking to Bob at the bar: "I just graduated last spring...philosophy...") she doesn't confirm it then, nor does she confirm it when she talks about her life later (1:13 or so): "I grew up in New York, and I moved to Los Angeles when John and I got married, but it's so different there..." She says at the bar that she's been married for two years. This being the case--being married two years, having graduated "last Spring," and moving to Los Angeles "when John and I got married"--it seems that she actually graduated from a Los Angeles-area school, given the timeline. At the time this movie was made (indeed at the time I'm writing this), Yale did not offer bachelor's degrees in philosophy via distance education.

Something to consider... Ommnomnomgulp (talk) 21:20, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Response
There is a great deal of praise and only a small amount of criticism in the article. Everyone I have heard say they have seen this film said they disliked it and were disappointed with it for the same reason as I am: "nothing happens". It is puzzling that it has good actors, director etc and has won awards. However, it has very little plot, no romance, very little connection between the characters and insufficient backstory about how the Americans chose to be in Japan, when they don't enjoy being there. Opening with a shot of Johansson in her underwear misleads the viewer into thinking the film they are watching is going to be erotic. This isn't a forum comment, I am suggesting that the article is not neutral because it is biased in favor of the film by heavily praising it and having little criticism. 109.249.243.166 (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't represent every point of view. Generally speaking, if an opinion has been published in a reputable source, it can be used on wikipedia. That is not to say that just because a contrary opinion has been published it should receive equal attention. Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy states that you should not give undue weight to an opinion. Lost in Translation stands as one of the best reviewed films of all time. It has a 95% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (meaning 95% of critics liked it). So in this case, at best, negative opinions deserve about a twentieth of the space allotted to positive opinions on wikipedia.
 * TL;DR: Just because you and your friends didn't like the movie doesn't mean your negative opinion belongs on wikipedia. --Rawlangs (talk) 03:21, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted
This article has in its history dealt with an external link that was repeatedly added in violation of WP:ELNO. It's just been blacklisted, in case anyone was watching this page for that reason. NTox · talk 21:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That is good to know. Thanks! --- The Old Jacobite The '45  22:05, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Spoilers
MUST every film article in Wikipedia include the whole plot, including the ending? Please reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.147.150.63 (talk) 15:10, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The place to take this opinion is WP:SPOILER. The current consensus of Wikipedians is that a plot summary is to include all of the plot. NTox · talk 03:17, 16 May 2014 (UTC)