Talk:Lost in Translation (film)

References to use

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.

Books

• Ballinger, Alex (2004). "Lance Acord". New Cinematographers. Laurence King Publishing. ISBN 1856693341.
• Bolton, Lucy (2006). "The Camera as Speculum: Examining Female Consciousness in Lost in Translation, Using the Thought of Lucy Irigaray". In Renzi, Barbara Gabriella; Rainey, Stephen (eds.). From Plato's Cave to the Multiplex: Contemporary Philosophy and Film. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. pp. 87–97. ISBN 978-1-84718-013-1.
• Bolton, Lucy (2011). "Lost in Translation: The Potential of Becoming". Film and Female Consciousness: Irigaray, Cinema and Thinking Women. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 95–127. ISBN 978-0-230-27569-0.
• Cohen, David S. (2008). "'It's two people; nothing happens'". Screen Plays: How 25 Scripts Made It to a Theater Near You—for Better or Worse. It Books. pp. 67–78. ISBN 978-0-06-118919-7.
• Cronin, Michael (2008). "The long journey home: Lost in Translation to Babel". Translation goes to the Movies. Routledge. pp. 81–107. ISBN 978-0-415-42285-7.
• Darnell, Michelle R. (2011). "Films of situation: Being Lost in Translation". In Boule, Jean-Pierre; McCaffrey, Enda (eds.). Existentialism and Contemporary Cinema: A Sartrean Perspective. Berghahn Books. ISBN 978-0-85745-320-4.
• Kaplan, Michael A. (2010). "Liberalism, friendship, and the predicament of cybernetic sociality: Lost in Translation". Friendship Fictions: The Rhetoric of Citizenship in the Liberal Imaginary. University Alabama Press. ISBN 978-0-8173-1689-1.
• King, Geoff (2010). Lost in Translation. American Indies. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0-7486-3746-1.
• King, Homay (2010). Lost in Translation: Orientalism, Cinema, and the Enigmatic Signifier. Duke University Press Books. pp. 3, 16–17, 138, 160–169. ISBN 978-0-8223-4759-0.
• Marciniak, Katarzyna (2006). "The dialects of exile: Resident alienhood and Lost in Translation". Alienhood: Citizenship, Exile, And The Logic Of Difference. University of Minnesota Press. ISBN 978-0-8166-4576-3.
• McKiernan, Derek (2008). "Globalization, Mobility and Community". Cinema and Community. Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 140–166. ISBN 978-0-230-51761-5.

Articles

• Scarlett fever
• Sofia Coppola Talks About Lost In Translation, Her Love Story That’s Not “Nerdy”
• Q&A with Sofia Coppola
• Scarlett Fever (Newsweek)
• 'I know how to be sour'
• Talking Out Loud
• Sofia's Choice
• The Coppola Smart Mob

-some more articles to use.--J.D. (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sophia Coppola on Lost in Translation
• Tokyo Story
• Behind-the-Scenes of Lost in Translation with Sofia Coppola

-more articles to use.--J.D. (talk) 13:38, 28 August 2009 (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 [1], 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)

reviews section

"Lost in Translation was boosted by universal critical acclaim...It has a rating of 95% "Certified Fresh" on Rotten Tomatoes..."

the 95% (as opposed to 100%) means "universal" can't be used re the critical acclaim, unless with a qualifier, like "near-universal". needs changing to avoid being logically contradictory. 63.142.146.194 (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)