Lost In Translation And The Double Standard

Yes, it's a double-standard...
But you can't live in a perfect world where every thing is upheld by utopian principles. The world doesn't work that way.

All races are not viewed the same in terms of it's American history. The black civil rights movement was front and center during the 60's. It's close to peoples consciousness. And the atrocities were vivid and clear even today.

So poking fun at blacks will not come as easily as other races because the other races were not considered to suffer the same as blacks were during the last 40 years (lets talk recent history because that's what people remember). Now, if you want to get into "I was victimized more than you were...etc, etc..." Well, then you will be splitting hairs and will just be spiting into the wind. People will not buy it. Especially today. It's not the 1910's nor the 1960's.

That's why I asked you..."Are you a victim?"

P.S. If its any consolation to you, maybe someday (100 years from now) we'll be able to make fun of Blacks like they do to Asian or Mexicans or French...but it takes time.

It all comes back to each race, and if they have a sense of humor about themselves.

 

ive read about this, the deal is, Asians Americans can be the model minority if they don't complain about things.

but really, some people can get more offended by being called a racist these days because it connotates things like the KKK, hitler and skinheads. and no one wants to be hitler. however, today it is used more in the terms of second generation racism which focuses more on ignorance and a lack of consideration, from openly hating to just believing that there are different races, like orcs, elves and humans.

 

Lord of the Rings was the single-most racist movie against Orcs I've ever seen in my life. They were all characterized as evil and ugly. There was not one single positive portrayal of Orcs in the entire movie. You cannot tell me that there was not at least one non-ugly, non-evil Orc in the entire Middle Earth? Oh, the indignation!

Also where were the Asians and people of color in this movie? I feel excluded and victimized !!!

 

Easterlings: Inhabitants of the vast steppes to the east of Rhovanion the word Easterling is a generic term for all those nomadic peoples inhabiting the lands between and beyond the Iron hills and the sea of Rhun. Recruited in large numbers by Sauron for his two wars in Middle-earth, they are generally small and swarthy and are matchless riders and horse-archers. The most important groupings (constituting the westernmost of the Easterling peoples),are the Sagath and the Logath.
-definetly Asians

Haradrim: These are a great desert people inhabiting the great wastes that lie south of the enclosing mountains of Mordor. Though their populations are small in the northern reaches of their realm, in the far south they have great and populous cities from which the Dark-lord recruits many of his great armies. They are a dark-skinned and noble people: They fight with scimitars and are fond of bright colored loose-fitting garments.
terro...i mean ara...I mean, guys from the middle east but not israelies.

Wild Men- Irish, no need for verification

The ghost army were definetly Americans. saving the day at the end, after being banished from a war long ago.

Orcs- dark skinn..no, dont want to go there, that would be racist.

 

Ok Nomar, I have to pipe in. To let you know I am Japanese (born in Tokyo, Japanese citizen but have lived in the US most of my life - grew up in Houston now on the East Coast but still keep close ties to Japan). Anyway here's my long take on some of these movies.

To answer your first part, I loved Lost in Translation as a movie. It had the exact same attitude of a "love story" filmed in Tokyo that I would have expected from a Japanese film maker. It did not feel like the Hollywood-version of a Japanese set movie, which is in my opinion the highest compliment I can give for a movie based or set in Japan. The cinematography is absolutely beautiful and captures many sites of Japan well. The understated romance between the two characters is very umm "Japanese" in some sense. You see two characters lost admist a chaos of modern and postmodern culture. There is perhaps no city like Tokyo to depict this. To be honest, if the two characters were NOT American or Caucasian, I would still have believed it. It could have just been a washed up Japanese actor trying to make a few extra bucks by degrading himself who finds a young aimless Japanese house-wife also in a state of longing for something in life (in fact there are many Japanese house wives who could fit that description). To me, it would have been fine that way with non-American characters and would have worked as a movie.

Besides the characters the overall umm subtle development of the plot was also more typical to films found in Japan than say in the US, which I enjoyed. The final scene of the movie I thought was the masterpiece stroke. You are really as an audience left to your own thoughts as to what had really transpired and depending on your own perspective/background/experiences it could be taken to be many things. I loved it. No happy cookie cutter ending where everything has to be spelled out to the final letter.

Rating: A

That being said, here are my answers to the criticisms. Is this a racist movie and how does it compare to Last Samura and Kill BIll (I have seen all of them)?

I don't think it is racist as much as it does point out several cultural differences and does take it a bit over the top. To be fair, it does exaggerate some things, but to be honest, nothing shown is something that could not or would not actually happen to some degree. There are outrageous television shows in Japan. There are some weird, kinky places (hey nothing you probably won't find in NYC). Karaoke is hugely popular even among the older crowd. Bad jazz seems to be everywhere (along with really really good ones). The overall setting and mood in the movie is NOT in my personal opinion contradictory to what you might see in Tokyo. That being said, it does not show the WHOLE side of Tokyo and only highlights the more extreme parts of it. Extreme being defined in relation to what an American is used to culturally. This is I guess what garners the race card in that the movie uses these extreme cultural differences to make the setting more "comedic."

First of all, I really don't like this movie being classified as a comedy. It is not. It is a drama with some funny scenes. I think playing up the comedy role is what gives people an impression that this movie is racist. I actually had no problems with the use of these extreme settings to help tell the story of a lonely depressed middle aged man who seeks salvation in the form of a young lost housewife. As I mentioned above, I think the story could have worked if all the characters were Japanese. That is why I really don't think the movie is racist in that regard. The story would have been universal. Also, almost all of my Japanese friends who have seen the movie were not offended by these depictions. Actually, they were quite happy to see how an American filmmaker depicted some of the more eccentric qualities of Tokyo without it being racist. I think most Japanese especially those who live or have lived in the US can appreciate the cultural gap that exists. However, the flip side is that I can see how some Japanese citizens who have never experienced that cultural gap first hand could be offended by the movie.

Now for the more "racist" of Hollywood movie of the "Last Samurai." That movie was also beautifully shot with a pretty decent overall story. It was really a "Dances with Wolves" set in Japan. However, I found it much more appalling than Last Samurai. I actually like Tom Cruise and have no problems with epic pieces. Yet, the movie utterly fails in one major point. I had no major problems with the premise white man help save a small Japanese village (however implausible that might have been - turned on suspension of disbelief) nor with many historic inaccuracies. Why would Japan turn to the US during that time? America was not THE super power during the US Civil War. The major problem I had with the movie was the last scene.

If Tom Cruise's character had truly accepted the Samurai Code, he would not be ALIVE to go back to the Japanese village to single handedly populate it. I mean what was the whole point of those winters of hard work learning Bushido if he basically goes back to the village. He should have been utterly disgraced to have lost the battle - fine he might not taken his life (although a true follower of the Samurai code would have), but still go back to the village as a defeated soldier - ugh. His mugging at the end before the village and the Japanese woman is what really riled me. Typical typical Hollywood. White man comes in, becomes honorable, tries to save town, fails but regains his soul and life again. Ugh! I really can't think of a Japanese director agreeing to that script. It was the greatest holier than thou statement made. We (non-Japanese) respect your culture and "accept it" but in the end we will do whatever we think is right. I saw this with my family and we were all disgusted that the characters and hence the filmmakers did not "get" what a Samurai really was and what it stood for.

Last Samurai
Movie: C (not a bad movie as a popcorn movie but ending literally was the death blow for me - too bad it wasn't for Cruise's character as well)

Kill Bill - ok too long to write a full review but had no major problems with it. It was meant to be a COMEDY about the Japanese samurai movies and over the top culture along with many many things. Liked the overall script and direction. Grade is incomplete until I see the second half, but so far: B+

Ok sorry for going so long and I am sure no one will read the whole thing, but I have to say I disagree with your assesment of "Lost in Translation" Nomar. This is especially true in light of your positive statements of "Last Samurai," which I absolutely did not like in its use of the Japanese culture.

 

The topic's a bit old at this point, but perhaps we should ask the citizens on Nanking what they think of Japan's military tradition...

Of course all countries have committed military atrocities. But let's just not forget that "military tradition/prowess" is not always interchangable with "nobility"

 

I didn't like Lost in Translation very much, Bill Murray's performance was good but not Oscar worthy in my opinion. I think Johnny Depp should win Best Actor.

 

mishii,

Wow! Excellent post. I have not seen the Last Samurai. My reasons are because of the patronizing way Hollywood makes some of their films. Like they "feed it" to us, and expect us to buy it hook-line and sinker because, well, "Hey, a star is in it!"

In a nutshell. Here's what I thought the film was about: TOM CRUISE

If you think about it, a lot of films today are written like that. Back in the 80's when movie studios started to get bought out by Vivvendi, News Corp, Sony, Time Warrner the quality of films went down in an artistic sense. Sure, Hollywood has always been questionable on their "history." But now it's worse because the film has to put the most butts in the most seats in the movie theaters. It's about profit. And when it's about profit, the films are targeted to the MASSES. Ugh...

So, this film isn't about history, or Japan, or the Samurai. It's about Tom Cruise, PRETENDING to represent *history, or Japan, or a Samurai."

$$$Tom Cruise$$$

Sad, isn't it?

P.S. I feel the same way about "the Patriot" with Meg Gibson. Ironically I was in England seeing "American Beauty." And the preview for "the Patriot" came on before the film started. You should have heard the sneers. Heh...

Not because of the lack of historical perspective the film gave off, but because of the way Mel Gibson had a "holier than thou" attitude. Melodramatic and sentimental. Tacky...just tacky...

U-571 is the same way. Puts a "American" spin on a German achievement. I mean, heck! Are American's the only ones that hold a franchise on bravery, achievement, fear, and courage? I think not. But Hollywood wants us to think that.

 

I could have bought the argument that Katsumoto was, in fact, the titular character except for one thing:


In the final scene with the Emperor, Cruise tells the Emperor that, if his loyalty is doubted, all he has to do is ask, and Cruise would gladly end his own life. That's pretty clear: Cruise is Samurai. The last one. No one but a Samurai would make said offer, and the fact that it directly mirros Katsumoto's very words from earlier in the film makes is clear that Cruise has inhereited the code, the ideals, and the manners of Samurai.

 

I'd be willing to bet that Tom Cruise was probably the "center of attention" in the film , not Kasumoto (Ken Watanabe).

And that's what the masses will remember. Tom Cruise. I'll let you guys hash out the rules and traditions of the Samurai. Not sure about that...

 

Last Samurai = Tom Cruise vanity flick that was engineered to try and get him an Oscar. Pretentious, cliched, overblown and with a completely unbelievable ending.... I thought this movie was the more offensively racist and patronizing film over the mostly innocuous Lost in Translation (which wasn't mocking Japanese culture but mostly mocking the fish out of water Americans)

 

OMG!!! CONFIRMED: YOURE A ****ING IDIOT!!!! PLEASE JUST PAY YOUR TAXES AND DONT EVER TRY TO CRITICIZE A MOVIE AGAIN EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

lost in translation is in the top 3 movies of the year.

in america
lost in translation
city of god

got rave reviews in japan. my girlfriend is taiwanese and loved it.
again....you really should get a life....along with all the other 80% sheep moronic jerkheads of the world like you who should spend less time trying to be the next ebert and more time playing russian roulette.

calling someone (sophia coppola) racist when they obviously are NOT.... i'm not a violent man so that only warrants a verbal wrench to the teeth.

 

HAHA!! Nomar is one of those people who love to use the word pretentious and have no idea what it means!! gawwwd there are way too many of you.

here: google to webster and correctly spell "pretentious" and press enter. then...now this is the most important part...you must read and comprehend the definition.

 

Grow up.

 

the fact that you use this as some type of legitimization is just distrubing on so many levels. I hope that she doesnt know that you use her ethnicity to establish claims about all Asians.

 

lower your cholesterol.
















i also used the fact that japanese audiences overall saw nothing wrong with the movie.

 

I'm sorry if I appalled you. Sorry I didn't get it, but apparently many Japanese people who I saw it with me didn't either while we all thoroughly enjoyed Lost in Translation. Go Figure.

I do understand the Last Samurai's premise. I am not going into the possible historic inaccuracies as I assume the movie has taken some liberties. However it does not excuse it for being a Tom Cruise vanity flick as DavidS and crackhead pointed out. I like Cruise a lot, but this was unbearable. And here we go as you pointed out, "it was about saving Japan." The movie makes it too black and white on the samurai issue as some people pointed out. Samurai at that time were not all honorable warriors (many were nothing more than code following criminals at that point). And then we have Algren coming in to be rescued and then help rescue the country he now loves, because the rest of the Japanese are too blind to see that this great tradition is being laid to waste. Ack. "White Man's Burden" to the extreme...still..sure sure it was all about Katsumoto saving the day with Tom Cruise err Algren providing a "supporting" role.

Now MacBeth does raise good points about the last scene with Cruise and the Emperor. However, I still find it hard to believe that a samurai in disgrace would not have committed seppuku/harakiri (ceremonial suicide) at that time or perhaps at a later time. Most of my Japanese family and friends were also a bit bewildered by these turn of events. So I guess if Nomar is correct, he did not follow Bushido but used it where convenient (hence my disgust for it) to help Katsumoto "win back" the country he loves OR Algren really tried to follow it but after being defeated and the emperor letting him live to continue on goes home as a defeated warrior. I do like MacBeth's explanation better than my initial ones and can somewhat redeem the movie. But then you get into the problem of it still being a Tom Cruise vanity flick as he would then become the proud or maybe not so proud defeated "Last Samurai." I have problems with both possibilities.

However, Nomar, I still do not understand why you feel that "Lost in Translation" is a "racist" movie. I truly do not. As another member pointed out, it is a "fish out of water" story, but my main point was that the main characters could have been Japanese and many of the scenes, if not the whole movie, would have worked well. I personally still loved the movie and believe it as one of the few American movies that depicted Tokyo (the eccentric side at least) well in my honest opinion. Sure it shows a lot of the bizzarro life in Tokyo, but if anyone knows Japan and Tokyo, in particular, well, you will see that these eccentricities exist in one form or another especially if you look at it from an American view point. Showing cultural differences in a movie like this does not necessarily make it into a "racist" movie. Although I do see the inherent possible dangers of doing so. It takes a really skilled director from crossing that line (someone who obviously knows her material first hand). I clearly thought that she had not crossed the line, but I guess some of you thought she did. I am not sure any amount of debating will resolve that. However, I just wanted to inform people who do read this board that not everyone feels that "Lost in Translation" is a racist movie and to give some persepective from someone who knows the Japanese and American culture. Of course there are others in the same boat who might disagree with me, which is fine. I just want to know the reasons.

 

You are probably very good in Military history. Can I ask you to clarify 2 things about the Mongols:
1) Didn't Japan win that war because the Mongols' fleet was destroyed in a storm?

2) Didn't VietNam fight back the Mongols several times itself?

 

1) In part, but there was an extensive land battle. And the reason the Mongols decided not to return were the samurai, not the weather.

2) By VietNam, I assuem you mean the Khmers of the Hanoi region? Am impressed that you even know about this at all. Fight back? No. The Mongols won every battle, took Hanoi three different times, etc....but the victories were of the Pyrrhic variety, and they decided that the gain of occupation was outweighed by it's cost, and left.