Blogcritics: Comments on Lost in Translation

Comment by William Donaruma

Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:27:49 EST

I wonder where all these rumors start about various movies shooting digitally. Lost in Translation was NOT shot digitally. It used a Moviecam 35 camera with Kodak Vision 500T film. Minimal lighting, but all on film.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 11 Jan 2004 22:47:15 EST

The reason they shot on digital is it is cheap and fast. They could shoot on the run without a huge crew and take advantage of improvisation and immediately know what they had. Similar reasons behind "28 Days Later" which was also shot on DV -- especially for the deserted London scenes, they only had brief periods of less than an hour to get shots (the commentary by Danny Boyle is quite interesting for cheap, fast shooting).

Comment by the house of real estate

Sun, 11 Jan 2004 21:53:27 EST

I didn't know they shot digital on that movie. The movie was pretty good, although I think it dragged in certain parts. Murray was perfect for that part as well.

Comment by Jim Carruthers

Sun, 11 Jan 2004 18:26:19 EST

One of the remarkable things about "Lost In Translation" is the use of low-cost digital video for the cinematography. That is the digital future of movies, small, cheap, niche movies, not bloated, useless spectacles and masses of noise, etc. In his Movie Answer Man column Roger Ebert got a question about the stupid "R" rating given "Lost In Translation" (try and find something) which is the same as "Kill Bill". Frank Rich has a column about the changes Hollywood is undergoing, relying on hugely expensive blockbusters at a time the market (as teevee has already done) is fragmenting into niches.

For those who cherish a vital pop culture this is good news. While 2003 was a year marked by the further consolidation of power by a handful of mega-media companies, the audience is not without some power to fight against them. The more we reject embarrassing big-ticket stunts like "Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle" and "Coupling," the riskier it becomes to produce bloated would-be crowd-pleasers chasing after a theoretically homogeneous crowd. Vanity — and perhaps the possibility of found money — might even drive the media giants to bolster their output of more diversified, less costly and perhaps better products that speak to our various niches: movies like last year's "Lost in Translation," "Capturing the Friedmans," "American Splendor," "Monster," "Thirteen," "In America," "Fog of War" and "Spellbound."

The best thing to hope is the success of "Lost In Translation" will lead to more small-scale, niche movies made on a rational budget. As I write, "Lost In Translation" is still playing in theatres here in Toronto, more than 3 months after opening. Remember when newspaper ads for movies used to tout how many weeks or months they'd been playing at a particular theatre?

Comment by ParticleMan

Sat, 10 Jan 2004 20:45:04 EST

I also thoroughly enjoyed this movie. I think the best part was the cinematography (sp?) and minimal dialogue. Most of the story and emotion was told very well by images alone. I liked how Bob's and Charlotte's relationship bordered on the Lolita-ish throughout the whole movie without seeming sleazy or dirty. They were just two people caught in similar circumstances - estranged from their normal lives.