Lost in Translation

[roadworthyman]

---

ha?

[Carlo Borromeo]

ha?

ha? ha-it ta nang nawong mo!

[[DSX]]

huh... maoy meaning anang "y tu mama tambien?"

[Carlo Borromeo]

Ignore Roadworthyman. They didn't slap his ass when he was born.

No oxygen in the brain.

[r/brey]

i think bob said to charlotte "it has been nice spending my time with you, don't forget me, ok?" and as we can hear it charlotte said "ok" back. hehee. but thats just me. i think it would be better that way eh? hehehe

[[DSX]]

i like the former

[r/brey]

yeah, well we can speculate millions of phrases. hehehe. lets just leave bob and charlotte alone then.

[MrBiddle]

i was very clumsy, i posted this in another thread but its a reply to roland regarding the "payoff" business:

that's NOT what i meant


Se7en had a LOT of payoffs. And it didn't mean that Mills killed John Doe and lived happily ever after with his wife Tracy in their, shaking, vibrating apartment

The opposite of payoff is called a "plant".

-------------------------


PULP FICTION, in a way *might* have lacked payoffs, but there are instances where certain characters are kept a question for part of the film........ there are scene where mia and vincent talk about SOMEONE, but that backbiting is used as an expository element that would later unravel to the fullest in the chapter that followed VINCENT VEGA AND MARSELLUS WALLACE'S WIFE.

In the beginning, we wonder, why does a hitman have to waste time reading a passage from the Bible? Does he have a thing for God? A thing for Spirituality?

LATER ON after "The Gold Watch" chapter, once again, that unravels and then a contrived incident in the story takes place only it seems LESS contrived because ultimately, it connects with Jules character exposition.


back to lost in translatn.:

sofia definitely KNEW how she was gonna end it. there was no better way, but once again the middle parts felt like filler-uppers to me.


------

but you must remember EVERYONE in here, there are NO facts just interpretations and IMHO, thats a notion that applies on a big, big scope of things including the way we think of movies.....

ciao.

[MrBiddle]

I'll add

And keeping characters a question to me can balance any "lack of payoffs"......

There are some movies where things are reiterated to make us SURE about a certain character. Or simply to make his 3-dimensionality be displayed on screen more extensively.

In PULP, the accident where vince shoots marvin seems a little contrvied, but when i think about it, i think it was just to reiterate that he was a clumsy-assd fvck. And maybe just so vince could have soemthing to do with that chapter of the story, because what it was really all about was Jules "miracle"........ and vince's story and possible character arc was long over in the first half of the movie...

the scenes in LOST seemed a little redundant.

[Carlo Borromeo]

From Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column

http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-...y-ebert21.html

Q. I work at a local video store and the recent release of "Lost in Translation" on DVD has had lots of people asking about it. But I noticed that about 90 percent of the people that watched it said they didn't like it. In fact, most of them said that it was one of the worst movies they've ever seen. They didn't understand why it drew all of the attention that it got.

Is this because of the expectations that the general public has in their minds? Was it over-advertised by the Oscar hype it got? Or is it just because the general public can't watch a film that will challenge them to think when they are used to watching big-budget films where everything is drawn out for them?
Sean O'Connell, Novato, Calif.


A. Yes, yes and yes. "Lost in Translation" requires audiences to be able to pick up feelings and information on frequencies that many moviegoers don't receive on. Most of the movies most people go to see are made in such a way that not a moment's thought is required. The audience is a passive receptor for mindless sensation. When I'm told by people that they hated "Lost in Translation," I have to restrain myself from replying, "You are saying more about yourself than about the film."