In Reply to: Lost in Translation... and... Jesus of Montreal posted by Victor Khomenko on December 18, 2004 at 20:05:08:
Actually, I have not seen this film before. The set up, certainly. Man, dissatisfied with his career and home life. Woman upset with her home life because husband is pre-occupied with his work. They meet. What do you expect? Obviously, for them to begin an affair for so long as they it takes before they re-enter their own individual worlds which they must go back to. That movie I have seen.But Coppola realizes such would be a cop out. An affair would be too easy, allow the charachters to avoid their problems while engaging in carnel bliss. At the end of the day, an affair would provide no answers, and serve no purpose. So, she has them essentially be friends, tip toeing around the desire or need to have sex. Friends discuss issues, and problems. Not avoid them.
This is Murray's best performance, more un-Murray like than anything he has done(though Rushmore comes close). Johanson further establishes herself as one of the more talented young actresses in film today, with an ability to select very good material (the Perfect Score) excluded.
The middle of the film is not simply them having fun. It is about them carrying on as a couple, talking about important problems, without the distraction of sex. It is during that portion of the film that we learn most about these characthers.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: Lost in Translation... and... Jesus of Montreal - jamesgarvin 16:51:19 12/19/04 (4)
- Re: Lost in Translation... and... Jesus of Montreal - Victor Khomenko 17:34:29 12/19/04 (3)
- Re: There was no sex but.... - patrickU 07:30:03 12/20/04 (2)
- I dunno... - Victor Khomenko 10:56:52 12/20/04 (1)
- Re: I dunno... - patrickU 11:50:41 12/20/04 (0)